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

net/publication/283269883

Take off resistance estimation of Wing In Ground Effect (WIG) Craft

Conference Paper · September 2012

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1306.9044

CITATION READS
1 2,163

4 authors:

M. Mobassher Tofa Adi Maimun

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
21 PUBLICATIONS   70 CITATIONS    178 PUBLICATIONS   825 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yasser M. Ahmed Saeed Jamei

Alexandria University Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
113 PUBLICATIONS   1,301 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   113 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of Improved Savonius VAMCT Rotor Performance View project

Systems engineering and concurrent engineering ship as large complex systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yasser M. Ahmed on 15 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The 6th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Marine Hydrodynamics (APHydro2012) Malaysia, September 3-4, 2012

Take off resistance estimation of Wing In Ground Effect (WIG) Craft

M.Mobassher B.Tofa, Adi Maimun,Yasser M.Ahmed, S jamei

Mechanical - Marine Technology
University Technology Malaysia
Skudai, Johor , Malaysia
tofabuet@gmail.com

ABSTRACT - Power estimation is an integral part while we Nomenclature

design any craft, for WIG it’s need a lot of effort to estimate RT Total craft drag
resistance during takeoff. Analysis of WIG drag forces is Rhw Wave-making drag of the hull, including the spray drag
painstaking and expensive process as high speed towing tank, Rhf Water-friction resistance acting on the hull
wind tunnel test are required. Planning hull is an automatic Rsww Wave-making drag caused by side buoys (or sidewall),
choice for WIG as it needs high speed to take off. Though WIG Rswf Water-friction resistance acting on the side buoys
shares lot of common features with high-powered planing Raw Wave-making resistance caused by air cushion pressure
boats, the WIG is supported by aerodynamic and under the main wing
hydrodynamic pressure while takeoff and aerodynamic Ra Air profile resistance of the whole craft
pressure during cruise, whereas the planing boat is mainly ρa Air density (Ns/m)
supported by the hydrodynamic force, by Savitsky’s formula it Vs Craft speed (m/s)
is relatively easy to calculate planning hull drag but to Sa Reference area for calculating the air profile drag
calculate resistance of a planning hull that is affected by C Chord length
aerodynamic force(WIG) can be challenging. In this paper a bat Air-tunnel beam
simple method has been presented to calculate WIG drag bh Hull width
during take off by modifying Savitsky’s formula that includes bsb Side buoys width
aerodynamic effect on wetted surface, later outcome of the CD Air profile drag coefficient of the craft model,
method has been verified with free running test. From the CL Lift coefficient of the craft model
results , it has been clear that aerodynamic force affects the Acp Aerodynamic lift centre measured from transom.
resistance significantly as a WIG approaches to takeoff, the Lp Hydrodynamic lift centre measured from transom.
maximum power requirement reduces about 30% if W Weight of the total craft or Displacement (Newton)
aerodynamic effect on wetted surface is taken into ρ Water density (Ns/m)
consideration. Wetted surface area
λ Wetted length ratio
Keywords: WIG; Planing Hull; Savitsky Method; takeoff; Trim in Deg
power estimation; drag; aerodynamic effect, wetted surface B Average hull width
,free running test FnD Froude Displacement Number

Viscous drag due to water friction is main reason behind this

I. INTRODUCTION
high power requirement . So to minimize contact with the
water surface during cruise conditions is obvious solution. To
Wing in Ground (WIG) vehicles, or sometimes referred to as
estimate WIG drag during takeoff is difficult as both
Ekranoplans has enormous applications in several areas such as
aerodynamic lift on wings and hydrodynamic planing lift of
cargo transportation, military operations and even search and
hull act together, by Savitsky’s formula it is relatively easy to
rescue. The main reason behind the development of WIG craft
calculate planning hull drag but to calculate resistance of
is due to the speed limitations of conventional marine crafts.
planning hull that is affected by aerodynamic force(WIG) is
New generation marine crafts are always designed to be faster
not a easy task. The wetted length and trim angle can be
than their predecessors. Conventional displacement mono hull
obtained from the analysis of photos of a test tank model
could no longer keep up with the ever increasing requirements
directly but it is expensive, or takeoff drag can be estimated
for speed and multihull and planning hulls were introduced. By
based on similar craft designs which require a lot of data. A
hydrofoils and air cushion vehicles. higher speeds were
suitable mathematical model is necessary to include the
achieved. The practical maximum speed of all marine crafts
aerodynamic effect on wetted surface thus to estimate power
mentioned so far lies around 100 km/h. One of the major
requirement during takeoff more accurately
drawback for high speed marine crafts is the increased power
requirement thus increase fuel consumption.

Ship Resistances and Performances 513

The 6th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Marine Hydrodynamics (APHydro2012)
Figure 1: WIG craft model designed at UTM
WIG Model particulars
Model
Displacement 5.45 kg
LWL 0.97 (m)
Hull Breath (average) 0.15(m)
Draft 0.04(m)
Dead rise(average) 5(deg)
LCG from stern transom 0.45(m)
Chord length 0.67(m)
Angle of Wing 6 Deg
Aspect ratio 1.25
During the take-off the wetted area of the WIG hull changes
drastically ranging from a slender planing hull at initial stage
of run to a planing surface of moderate aspect ratio just before
the take-off [1]. A comprehensive review of simple relations
for estimation of wetted area obtained either from the two-
dimensional water impact theory or measurements is presented
in papers by Lai and Troesch[2]. Hopeful numerical methods
which can be effective for the planing hulls with large length to
beam ratio were reported in Zhao et al. and Sboev. A general
three dimensional numerical solution was suggested in papers
by Mayboroda though his approach has the disadvantage of
requiring enormous computational costs [3].The CFD
simulations of planing based on the finite-volume method
Kawamura et al. applied to Reynolds equations are still able to
solve only some simple problems and also require large CPU
time. The method proposed by Sheglova and successfully
tested by Lotov and Kolosov was applied to estimate the
wetted area of a planing WIG in the paper by Knud Benedict
[3].The simplest method for estimating the WIG craft drag
through the whole speed range or different FnD is scaling data
from towing tank model tests for pre-take-off condition and
from wind-tunnel test results of model flying after take-off.
However that’s need towing tank suitable for high speed. Also
Ship Resistances and Performances
Malaysia, September 3-4, 2012
it may over predict WIG take-off resistance as static thrust is
used in this method, however to know actual operational thrust
we have to collect dynamic thrust for each type of thruster
which is again an expensive process.
II. NUMERICAL FORMULATION
A WIG Drag Components:
The total craft drag before take-off is expressed at the book
title: “WIG Craft and Ekranoplan Ground Effect Craft
Technology” [4]as follows
+ + + + (1)
Here Rhw, Rhf ,Rsww , Rswf are hydrodynamic components of
Wig drag .
Air cushion momentum drag is not considered as bow thrusters
will not be used in our particular model. , can be
neglected as breadth of side hull is very small thus not have
significant resistance. So equation 1 becomes
+ + (2)
Air profile drag Ra can be predicted based on model
experiments in wind tunnel.
Ra = 0.5x CD x ρa x Sa xVs2 ( 3)
Where, Sa = (2bat + bsb + bh) · C
B Planing Hull
The planing hull is a kind of hull that is specifically
designed for a craft to achieve relatively high speed on the
surface of water. A planing hull makes the water to be pushed
down and to the sides as the hull moves forward. By the wake
depression behind the hull, the downward motion of the water
is observed. The pushing of the water sideways can be
observed by the spray produced to the sides of the hull. This
downward and sideways movement of water builds pressure
under the hull [5].
Drag calculation of Planning hull:
The total hydrodynamic drag of a planing surface is composed
of pressure drag and viscous drag acting tangential to the
bottom in both of pressure area and spray area [6]
+ (4)
+ (5)
Where,
0.5 V ρ
514
The 6th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Marine Hydrodynamics (APHydro2012) Malaysia, September 3-4, 2012

Where friction coefficient Cf can be calculated by the 0.6

CL CL 0.0065βCL (12)
following formula proposed by ITTC [7] :

.
C (6) C. Takeoff resistance calculation
L –

During take off both air cushion lift on wings and

hydrodynamic planing lift of hull act together , so the wetted
Wetted surface area is roughly [6]
length ratio and hydrodynamic lift coefficient both changed if
we compare it with only planning hull. Minimum force to take
λ (7)
off required is equal to the displacement of the Wig ,before
takeoff Wig’s weight is shared by the hydrodynamic and
Wetted length ratio (λ is one of the main parameters to
hydrostatic load (LH) and aerodynamic force (,LA) then total
calculate planning hull resistance, it can be calculated by lift (LT )required to hold its body is the summation of the
following formula by Savitsky [6]
hydrodynamic, hydrostatic and aerodynamic lift, which should
be equal to its weight(W).so we can assume
.75 (8)
. . LT LH LA W (13)
is wetted length ratio,.lp hydrodynamic pressure point
measured from transom stern .Hydrostatic loads and the effect So
of free surface wave generation are implicitly included in the
formula. Savitsky assumed [5] hydrodynamic pressure point is LH W LA (14)
at L.C.G as for a running trim total load has to be equal to the
weight and it should act though center of gravity. LA 0.5 ρ (15)

Therefore, CLβ (hydrodynamic Lift coefficient for β dead rise

) can now be

LA
CL (16)
.

Aerodynamic center of the pressure, XCP obtained by

following formula [9]
C /
X .25 (17)
C A α CD α
Figure 2: Savitsky philosophy to calculate planning hull
resistance[8] XCP measured from leading edge of the aerofoil and expressed
as percentage of Chord length.
Speed coefficient or “Breadth – froude Number” has been
given by the following equation D. Savitsky[6] ,

V
C (09)
B

The lift coefficient for flat planing hull (zero dead rise) has
been given by the following equation [6]

W
CL (10)
. ρ B V
Figure 3: An example of different force acting on WIG during
Also can be described with parameter angle of trim, wetted takeoff
length ratio and speed coefficient developed by D. Savitsky[6]
2.5
Angle of attack(deg) can be calculated by following formula
1.1 0.5 0.0055λ
0.012λ 2 (11)
AOA α (deg) = angle of wing + trim( ) n-1 (18)
For V-surface (prismatic), the lift Coefficient has been
expressed by D. Savitsky [5] as:

Ship Resistances and Performances 515

The 6th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Marine Hydrodynamics (APHydro2012) Malaysia, September 3-4, 2012

AOA is angle of atttack. For nth velocity,

v trim( ) n-1 should bee
taken.. For each anglle of attack wee can get aeroddynamic valuess Graphs of
o figure 4,5 annd 6 show coomparison bettween UTM
such lift coefficien nt,(CLA); drag coefficient( CD); pitchingg experimeent and publishhed paper resuults are for h//c= 0.1, we
momeent, CMc/4 , thesse values have been obtainedd through windd assume CL,
C CD and XCP value not n influencedd by small
tunnell tests., effectt of h/c has been neglectted .For stablee changes of
o h/c
runninng, forces actinng around the centre of gravvity have to bee
balancced, for a runniing trim the suum of momentss due to diversee 0..1
forcess about the centtre of gravity of
o the craft shoould be equal too
zero. Hydrostatic, hydrodynamic
h and aerodynaamic are mainn 0.0
08
forcess acted on WIG during takee-off. The resu ultant of liftingg Exp(J Mar 
forcess such as hydrrodynamic liftt force that accts on hull andd 0.0
06

CD
Sci Teechnol)
aerodyynamic force ata the centre off lift of the main wing shouldd
0.0
04
act th
hrough crafts CG [4], therrefore follo
owing moment Exp(u
utm)
equilibbrium equationn has to be sattisfied 0.0
02
lcg l LH lcgg A LA 0 (19)
0
From this equation we can get th he value of lp thus by usingg 0 5 10 15
equatiion 8, we can n get the valuee of . Acp is
i the distancee Angle of attackk
A
measu ured from sternn transom to Xccp. From equation 16 valuee
of CLββ. can be obtainned,, in equation 5 displacemeent W has beenn Figure 5: Comparisonn of CD value between
b publisshed paper
replacced by LH, resst of the calcculation of ressistance duringg annd wind tunnel test
takeofff have been calculated juust like planinng hull. If wee
assum
me the WIG ru uns at constannt accelerationn then we cann
0.7
make the time is ann implicit paraameter, by doing so we cann
calcullate the resistaance of WIG for f different velocity.
v Veryy 0.6
low acceleration value (0.5 m/s2) has been chosen so that wee 0.5
can find
f maximum m possible reesistance durinng takeoff. A
prograamming code has h been writteen by MATLA AB to calculatee 0.4 Exp(J M
Mar Sci 
XCP

the WIG
W takeoff resiistance 0.3 Technol)
0.2 Exp(utm
m)
III AE
ERODYNAM
MIC COEFFIC
CIENTS 0.1
0
At thee UTM wind tunnel the model m wing NAACA6409 hass
been studied
s to findd out its aerod
dynamic characcteristics. Thenn 0 5 10 15
the wiind tunnel test results ( CL, CD
C and XCP)) are comparedd of attack
Angle o
with results
r collecteed from a pub blished paper[[9], later thesee
resultss have been used
u as input at the MATLAB code thaat Figure 6: Comparison oof XCP valuess between publlished paper
calcullate WIG take-off resistance.. and windd tunnel test

1.2
2 IV. NUMERICAL FORMULAT TION TO ESTIMATE
E
ANCE FROM
RESISTA M FREE RUNN
NING TEST
1
As we knnow from motiion equation
0.8
8 Exp(JJ Mar 
m F t
Sci Teechnol)
F t T t R t
CL

0.6
6
Exp(u
utm) R(t) = T t m
0.4
4 m and damping force are asssumed to be zeero .
Added mass
At time t1 and t2 if the velocity
v are V1 and V2 and thhrust are T1
0.2
2 hen at ta averagge accelerationn is fa, average thrust is Ta
and T2 th
and averaage velocity is Va
0
,
0 5 10 15
Anngle of attack
e
Figure 4: Comparis on of CL valuues between published paperr
and wind
w tunnel testt

Ship Resistances and Performances 516

The 6th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Marine Hydrodynamics (APHydro2012) Malaysia, September 3-4, 2012

50
So average resistance at Va can be written as
m 40
Velocity vs time and Thrust vs Speed curve can be obtained

Resistance(N)
through Wireless Dashboard Telemetry system, depicted at 30
figure 7. Matlab code
20
Hull speed
10

0
0 10
Speed (m/s) 20

Figure 8: Planing hull Resistance

35
30
25

Resistance(N)
free 
20 running 
15 test

Figure 7: Wireless telemetry [11] 10

V VALIDATION:
By using Hull speed MATLAB code that calculates planing
hull resistance has been validated. Hullspeed [10] is common
software used by naval architects mainly to calculate resistance
of naval crafts. Hull speed also uses Savitsky’s method to
calculate resistance.Later the MATLAB code is modified
according to the mathematical model suggested in this paper
that includes effect of aerodynamic force on wetted surface to
calculate WIG take off resistance is validated by free running
test results. From figure 9, it can be seen the results obtained
from MATLAB code is almost perfectly matched with the
Hullspeed generated graph, thus validate the MATLAB code
that calculates planning hull drag. In figure 10, the graph
produced by the modified code based on mathematical model
suggested in this paper to calculate WIG take off drag is
compared with free running test .From figure 10, it is clear that
suggested mathematical model gives reasonably accurate
results.
theoretic
5 al
0
0 10 20
Speed(m/s)
Figure 9: Comparison between WIG and planing hull’s drag
V. COMPUTATIONAL RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Figure 10 to 15 show aerodynamic effects on WIG during take-
off by comparing various parameters for example resistance
,power wetted surface area etc of the WIG with similar
planing craft. Figure 10 shows as speed increases the
aerodynamic effect decreases the resistance, at 14 m/s it
reduces resistance about 30% and gradually hydrodynamic
effect going to be zero as revealed in figure 15. Figure 11
shows power requirement also reduced because of
aerodynamic effect. thus figure 13 shows wetted length ratio is
almost zero at 15.4 m/s draft is zero as given away in figure
13, at 16 m/s the WIG completely flaring in ground effect,
figure 14 shows at 15.4 m/s aerodynamic pressure almost
coincides with LCG of the craft which is about 0.45 m
measured from transom. away from transom while
hydrodynamic load gradually shifts towards transom. From
figure 15 it can be noticed, hydrodynamic effect is gradually
reducing and aerodynamic force takes over in terms of
carrying the total load of the craft, power requirement also
reduces after it reaches its pick around 13 m/s shown in figure
11.

Ship Resistances and Performances 517

The 6th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Marine Hydrodynamics (APHydro2012) Malaysia, September 3-4, 2012

0.1
50

Draft at transom 
45 0.08 Planing 
40 Hull
0.06
Resistance(N)

35
30 0.04 WIG
25 Planing 
20 Hull 0.02
15 WIG
10 0
5 0 10 20
0
Speed(m/s)
0 10 20
Speed(m/s)
Figure 13: Comparison between Wig and planing
Figure 10: WIG Resistance at different speed WIG’swetted length ratio

1.2 0.6
0.5

Pressure point (m)
Aerodynamic
1
0.4
0.8
Power(HP)

0.3 Hydrodynamic 
0.6 & hydrostatic
Planin 0.2
0.4 g Hull 0.1
0.2 WIG 0
0 0 10 20
0 10 20 Speed(m/s)
Speed(m/s)
Figure 14: centre of pressure at different speed
Figure 11: Power estimation at different speed (measured from transom)

7
1.2
6
Wetted length ratio

Aerodynamic
5 1
Force/Weight ratio

4
0.8
3 Planing Hull Hydrodynami
2 0.6 c  & 
WIG
1 0.4 hydroydostati
0 c 
0.2
0 10 20
0
Speed(m/s)
0 10 20
Figure 12: Comparison between Wig and planing WIG’s
wetted length ratio Speed(m/s)

Figure 15: Force vs weight ratio at different speed

VI. CONCLUSION

In this paper a simple mathematical model is presented to

estimate WIG takeoff speed and drag at different velocity,

Ship Resistances and Performances 518

The 6th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Marine Hydrodynamics (APHydro2012) Malaysia, September 3-4, 2012

along with a simple method to estimate power require by using

free running test. At proposed model aerodynamic effect on
wetted surface has been considered to get more realistic results.
As conventional ways of power estimation of WIG are both
time consuming and expensive, proposed model can be a easier
solution for early stage of designing. In this method some
aerodynamic characteristics are required can be collected either
from journals or from wind tunnel test. For different type of
wing the takeoff resistance would change because of the effect
of aerodynamic force that affects wetted surface. As shown in
this paper WIG requires quite high amount of power to takeoff,
stepped planning hull can be one of the solutions to reduce
hump drag while take off.

VII. REFERENCES

[1] Rozhdestvensky K.V, November 2008, Wing -in-ground effect vehicles,

Progress in Aerospace Sciences 42, page 211–283

[2] Lai.C., Troesch.A., 1996, A vortex lattice method for high-speed planning,
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, vol. 22, page 495-513.

[3]Knud Benedict, Nikolai Korne, Michael Meyer, Jost Ebert, 2002, Complex
mathematical model of the WIG motion including the take-off mode, Ocean
Engineering, Vol. 29, page 315–357.

[4]Liang Yun, Alan Bliault, Johnny Doo, 2009 ,WIG Craft and Ekranoplan
Ground Effect Craft Technology ,chapter 3, page 102-104, Heidelberg:
Springer

[5]Odd M. Faltinsen, Hydrodynamics of High-Speed Marine Vehicles, 2005

chapter 9, page 342-360, Cambridge university press.

[6] Savitsky,D, 1964, Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls, Marine

Technology, 1, 1, page 71–96.

[7]Kenneth C Barnaby, Basic naval Architecture , 1969,chapter XVIII page

336-355 ,Hutchinson & Co LTD

[8] Daniel Savitsky and P. Ward, 1976, “Brown Procedures for Hydrodynamic
Evaluation of Planing Hulls in Smooth and Rough Water” Marine Technology,
Vol. 13, No. 4, Oct. 1976, page 381-400

[9]Kwang Hyo Jung, Ho Hwan Chun, Hee Jung Kim, 2008, Experimental
investigation of wing-in-ground effect with a NACA6409 section, Journal of
Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 13, page 317–327.

[10]http://www.fdsfiles.com/releases/manuals/HSManual.pdf
[retrieved January 2011]

[11]http://www.eagletreesystems.com/support/Manuals/Pro
[retrieved January 2011]

Ship Resistances and Performances 519

View publication stats