DEGREE PROJECT IN VEHICLE ENGINEERING,

SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2019

Experimental Validation of
Innovative High-Speed Craft Spray
Deflectors

FRAN OSMAK

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES
 Abstract

Hydrodynamic analysis of high-speed craft is a complex problem. For years naval architects have tried
improving the efficiency of the hull, changing its form, the number of hulls, adding spray rails or steps.
Spray deflectors, an innovative modification of commonly used spray rails by a Swedish company called
Petestep, might be the next advancement in that process. Experimental validation of this concept is the
topic of this study. Previous years of towing tank tests showed compelling results, but were unable to
draw definite conclusions, mainly due to inability to compare the results of bare hull and deflector hull
tests which was a result of unequal trim achieved for equal input parameters (such as weight and speed).
With amended test speed range and deflector design modifications, this project aimed to yield unambigu-
ous results. Three spray deflectors were designed for different design speeds, tested and compared with
bare hull tests for drag and trim. The results showed that deflectors did not change the running position
of the hull compared to bare hull, allowing for an unequivocal drag comparison. Deflectors reduced drag
by up to 4.9%.
A number of design improvements were proposed as next steps in this research. A further successful
proof of concept (increased stability, lower resistance and fuel consumption) could provide a substantial
improvement in high-speed craft design resulting in a cheaper and a more comfortable ride with a lower
environmental impact.

i
 Work Division

This thesis was written in full by Osmak. However, the theoretical and experimental work was done
in collaboration with Luca Castaldi, a graduate student from the Royal Institute of Technology. Even
though the responsibilities varied slightly through different stages of the project, both authors were
equally involved overall. Decisions related to the continuation of the project were made jointly.
The first part of the project consisted of the theory review of research done in HSC field and then the
design of the strips and physical setup of the experiments. Each author wrote their own theory review,
with Castaldi focusing on numerical, and Osmak on experimental research. The rest of the first part was
achieved jointly.
The second part of the project involved the design of the speed matrix, compliance with International
Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) rules and documentation of the test procedures. This was done by
Osmak.
The final work of organizing, postprocessing and interpreting the results was done by Castaldi.

ii
 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Bogdan Molchanov for introducing me to this project and for numerous suggestions
that made my arrival to Stevens and work easier.
A big thank you to Mirjam Fürth for mentoring me throughout the project and whose guidance was
invaluable. I am grateful to have been a part of Fürth Laboratory team alongside Luca Castaldi, Matthew
Green and Jack Bonoli. Working with you was a pleasure.
My sincere thank you to Poul Andersen and Karl Garme for agreeing to be my academic supervisors.
Your feedback and support was immensely helpful.
Special thanks to Jonas Danielsson, Petestep CEO, whose useful insights about their concept contributed
to the quality of this work.
Last but not least, I want to thank all my friends and family for supporting me and believing in me
throughout the past two years of my studies.

Fran Osmak
New Jersey, July, 2019

iii
Table of Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Work Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Abbreviations and Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Goal of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Background 2
2.1 Savitsky’s method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1 Hard chines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2 High deadrise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.3 Warped hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.4 Trim tabs and interceptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.5 Spray rails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.6 Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.7 Spray deflectors - concept by Petestep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Project background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.1 Experimental setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.2 Previous work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3 Methodology 16
3.1 Scope of the research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2 Design weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3 Design speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.1 Minimum speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.2 Maximum speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3.3 Optimum speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3.4 Chosen speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4 The effect of bare hull plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.5 Deflector design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.6 Results processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4 Results and discussion 28

4.1 Bare hull experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2 Deflectors experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5 Conclusion 37

6 Future work suggestions 38

Appendix 39

References 41

iv
Abbreviations and Symbols

Acronyms

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics

CNC Computer Numerical Control
HSC High-Speed Craft
ITTC International Towing Tank Conference
LCG Longitudinal Center of Gravity
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
SLR Speed to Length Ratio
VCG Vertical Center of Gravity

Greek symbols

α The angle between keel and stagnation line [deg]

β Deadrise angle of the hull [deg]
 Propeller shaft angle relative to flow [deg]
λ Mean wetted length to beam ratio [-]
∆λ Increase in λ due to spray [-]
∆ Hull displacement [N ]
∇ Displaced volume by the hull [m3 ]
ρ Water density [kg/m3 ]
τ The trim angle between the keel and still water surface [deg]

Symbols

b Beam of the hull [m]

CF Skin friction coefficient [-]
CLβ Lift coefficient of a hull with deadrise [-]
CL0 Lift coefficient of a flat plate [-]
CP Center of pressure on the hull bottom [m]
CV Speed coefficient [-]
e Lever arm between the pressure force and VCG [m]
f Lever arm between the thrust axis and VCG [m]
fa Lever arm between Ra and VCG [m]
ff Lever arm between the friction force and VCG [m]
Fn Froude number [-]
F∇ Volumetric Froude number [-]
g Acceleration due to gravity [m/s2 ]

v
Lc Chine wetted length [m]
Lk Keel wetted length [m]
Lm Mean wetted length [m]
Loa Length overall [m]
Lwl Waterline length [m]
N Normal force on the hull bottom due to pressure [N ]
n Number of observations [-]
Ra Resistance of the appendage [N ]
Rf Frictional resistance [N ]
RT Total resistance [N ]
s Standard deviation [-]
T Thrust force [N ]
u Standard uncertainty [-]
V The speed of the hull [m/s]
x Perpendicular distance between the stagnation line and deflector [m]
y Longitudinal distance between the stagnation line and deflector [m]

List of Figures
1 MetalCraft Marine’s 9M Interceptor (MetalCraft Marine, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Pressure distribution on a plate (Larsson et al. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 Force identification on a planing hull (Larsson et al. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 Important terms related to planing (Larsson et al. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5 Forces equilibrium for a planing craft (High speed craft course, KTH, 2018) . . . . . . . . 4
6 A typical trim tab (left) and a typical interceptor (right) mounted on transom of a hull
(Tunçer et al, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7 Typical spray rail geometry (Larsson et al. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8 Pressure distribution on a stepped hull (Larsson et al. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9 Comparison between conventional spray rails (top) and spray deflectors (bottom) (Pe-
testep AB website, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10 Experimental model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11 Model in Rhinoceros® (Molchanov, 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12 Schematic of model setup and equipment (Molchanov 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13 An example of an underwater photograph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14 Mounted spray rails (left) and spray deflectors (right) (Molchanov, 2018) . . . . . . . . . 13
15 Volumetric Froude number vs. trim - all three configurations (Molchanov, 2018) . . . . . 14
16 Volumetric Froude number vs. drag - all three configurations (Molchanov, 2018) . . . . . 14
17 Savitsky’s trim prediction vs. experimental results - bare hull (Molchanov, 2018) . . . . . 14
18 Deflector hull for Fn=4.3. (Molchanov, 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
19 Resistance v. Froude number for displacement and planing hulls (Molchanov, 2018) . . . . 17
20 Contribution of spray in total drag (Molchanov, 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
21 Porpoising limit for a 20° deadrise prismatic hull (Savitsky, 1964.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
22 Trim comparison between two bare hull configurations and Savitsky’s method . . . . . . . 20
23 Bare hull with plates (left) and bare hull without plates (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
24 Speed range in volumetric Froude number for each deflector with design speeds in bold . . 22
25 Initial deflector design for F∇ = 4.0 with measurements in inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
26 Initial deflectors on the bottom of the hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
27 Underwater photograph of an initial deflector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
28 A schematic of the initial deflector’s design flaw - tip at the keel is submerged . . . . . . . 24

vi
 29 Final deflector design for F∇ = 4.0 with measurements in inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
30 Final deflector design on the bottom of the hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
31 Final deflector design with tapering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
32 A sample recording of drag, trim and heave for F∇ = 3.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
33 Drag comparison between bare hull experiments and Savitsky’s method . . . . . . . . . . 28
34 Trim comparison between bare hull experiments and Savitsky’s method . . . . . . . . . . 28
35 Relative drag and trim differences between bare hull experiments and Savitsky’s method . 29
36 Underwater photographs from bare hull tests for F∇ = 3.2 (top), F∇ = 4.0 (middle) and
F∇ = 4.8 (bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
37 Drag comparison between bare hull and first deflector hull tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
38 Trim comparison between bare hull and first deflector hull tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
39 Relative drag difference between bare hull and first deflector tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
40 Underwater photographs from deflector 2 tests for F∇ = 3.6 (top), F∇ = 4.0 (middle) and
F∇ = 4.4 (bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
41 A schematic of perpendicular distance between stagnation line and deflectors and improved
deflector locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
42 Relative drag difference between bare hull and deflector hulls 2 and 3 with improved
deflector location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
43 Underwater photographs from deflector 2 (left) and 3 (right) tests at design speed, before
(top) and after (bottom) improving the location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
44 Relative drag difference between bare hull and all deflector hulls with improved deflector
2 and 3 location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
45 Absolute drag difference between bare hull and deflector hulls for extended range of speeds 34
46 Relative drag difference between bare hull and deflector hulls for extended range of speeds,
with design speeds in bold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
47 Underwater photographs and corresponding Rhinoceros drawings for deflector 2 tests with
speeds of F∇ = 3.2 (top), F∇ = 3.8 (middle) and F∇ = 4.4 (bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
48 Relative drag difference between both bare hull and deflector hull and 2 most spread drag
measurements from bare hull tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

List of Tables
1 Design speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2 Defined model parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3 Bare hull average results with respective standard uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4 Deflector 1 average results with respective standard uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5 Deflector 2 average results with respective standard uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6 Deflector 3 average results with respective standard uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

vii
1 Introduction

High-speed craft (HSC) are defined as those operating in planing mode, which means that the hull of
the craft is predominantly supported by hydrodynamic pressure. HSC have many applications and a
significant increase in their use can be observed throughout the past couple of decades. Their most
notable purposes include civilian use (i.e. transport, in which catamarans or trimarans are often used),
leisure and military services. An example of a rescue high-speed boat is shown in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1: MetalCraft Marine’s 9M Interceptor (MetalCraft Marine, 2019)

Getting from point A to point B as fast as possible can be important from a utilization and time efficiency
point of view, sometimes it is fun, for sport’s purposes, while at other times it can be of paramount
importance, as is the case with rescue craft, whose crucial requirement is to be able to respond fast
and in a reliable manner to calls of distress. Regardless of their main objective, high-speed craft are
often associated with high cost. High speed usually implies large fuel consumption, which explains the
incentive for research, not only from a financial point of view, but from an environmental one as well.
As the need for high speed increases, the power requirements rise as well, increasing fuel consumption
of the vessel, which simply costs more money. Naturally, pollution grows hand in hand with above
mentioned factors. As the global awareness around environmental issues raises, it is essential that the
progress in HSC research and optimization moves in accordance with it. One possible approach is to
try to optimize the hull of the vessel, where the goal is to reduce the resistance and other influential
factors in hydrodynamic analysis by changing the shape of the hull. Over the course of many years
of optimization, there have been a lot of interesting hull shapes revisions, introducing deadrise, hard
chines, interceptors, steps, spray rails etc. One of the newest such potential improvement comes from
Petestep AB, a Swedish company whose innovative patent modified the commonly used spray rails. Spray
deflectors are positioned differently than typical spray rails with the goal of diverting spray backwards
and downwards, instead of sideways, thus decreasing drag. This concept is also expected to dampen
slamming loads and increase stability at high speeds.

1.1 Goal of the project

In cooperation with Petestep AB and done at Stevens Institute of Technology, this project aims to
continue research on spray deflectors. The goal of the project is to experimentally validate and analyze
this concept in HSC application. The model used for this research was used in previous research by
Molchanov (2018) and Lundmark (2018), allowing for easier continuation of investigation and comparison
of results. In 2018, the research could not offer definite conclusions on resistance reduction due to a trim
discrepancy between bare hull and spray deflector tests. This project aims to yield unambiguous results
and fully investigate the effect of spray deflectors. An improved spray deflector design will be tested in
calm water and compared with bare hull tests for drag and trim.

1
2 Background

As briefly mentioned in the previous chapter, the hull of a HSC is mostly supported by hydrodynamic
forces. While the craft is still, it is completely supported by the buoyancy caused by hydrostatic pressure,
according to Archimedes’ principle. As the craft begins to move, it puts water particles in motion and
starts to exert pressure on them, which in turn exerts the same pressure back onto the hull, according to
Newton’s third law. This pressure caused by water particles during movement is called hydrodynamic
pressure and a hull predominantly supported by hydrodynamic pressure is called a planing hull.
To examine the phenomenon of planing, one can observe Figure 2 below. As the hull is moving, the water
hits an area of the hull which is then called the pressure area. The length of the pressure area is called
wetted length. A point will exist, where the water hits the hull perpendicularly and all the kinetic energy
is transformed into pressure. This point of maximum pressure is called the stagnation point, while a line
along the hull connecting these points is called a stagnation line. The name comes from the fact that
water separates at this point, one part continuing aft along the lines of the hull, while the other, called
spray, moves forward and gets reflected back into the water. These terms are comprehensively explained
by Larsson et al (2000) which is largely based on the work of Savitsky (1964).

Figure 2: Pressure distribution on a plate (Larsson et al. 2000)

In reality, the hull of a moving boat is always supported by both hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces.
Hydrodynamic forces start to impact the support as soon as the boat starts moving. Hydrostatic forces
are always present, whereas hydrodynamic forces are related to the forward speed. Also due to forward
speed, a friction force will be present, acting parallel to the hull surface. Figure 3 shows all the forces
acting on a hull while it is planing. The resulting force is, naturally, the sum of all forces. The vertical
component of the resulting force is called lift while the horizontal one is called drag or resistance (Larsson
et al, 2000).

2
Figure 3: Force identification on a planing hull (Larsson et al. 2000)

2.1 Savitsky’s method

Even though he was not the first to examine the phenomena of planing craft, many consider Savitsky’s
work as fundamental. Experimental studies were conducted before him, but in order to utilize the data
on a larger scale, empirical equations were needed. He conducted a series of experiments and obtained
exactly that (Savitsky, 1964). The significance of his research lies, perhaps, in the fact that his empirical
equations are still used today as a prediction tool in the early stages of HSC design. The theory will, in
brief, be presented here.
In order to understand this theory, a few terms first have to be introduced. Figure 2 explains planing
of a flat plate. However, high speed hulls almost always take up a cross-sectional V shape. This is due
to high vertical accelerations experienced by a planing boat, so the V-shape greatly reduces the severity
of impact with water and enhances comfort (Larsson et al, 2000). The angle between the water and the
V-shaped hull is called deadrise and is denoted as β. Other relevant terms include the keel, chine and
mean wetted lengths, clearly shown below, as well as wetted length-beam ratio λ and the trim angle τ .

Figure 4: Important terms related to planing (Larsson et al. 2000)

The Froude number, generally having the form of:

speed
Fn = √ (1)
gravity ∗ length

used in the analysis here has the form of:

3
 V
Fn = √ (2)
gb

where b is the beam. The reason why beam is used instead of the length is because the wetted length
of a planing craft changes while the beam is usually constant. The following empirical formulas are a
result of Savitsky’s experimental tests. Firstly, lift coefficient has to be determined. The zero deadrise
lift coefficient CL0 is linked to the non-zero deadrise lift coefficient using:

CLβ = CL0 − 0.0065β(CL0 )0.6 (3)

Since the deadrise is present on most HSC, the non-zero deadrise lift coefficient can also be obtained by
the classic lift coefficient formula:

mg
CLβ = (4)
0.5ρV 2 b2

where m is the displacement of the craft and ρ is the water density. The zero deadrise lift coefficient can
then be calculated from eq. 3. In the equation below:

λ2.5
 
CL0 = τ 1.1 0.012λ0.5 + 0.0055 2 (5)
CV

it can be seen that there are two unknowns, the wetted length-beam ratio and the trim angle. The
speed coefficient CV is equal to the beam Froude number. Thus, iteration is needed. The trim angle is
assumed in degrees. From the expression above, the wetted length can be determined which is needed to
find the skin friction coefficient CF (ITTC, 2002). With skin friction coefficient known, one can obtain
the friction force:

b2
Rf = 0.5CF V 2 ρ(λ + ∆λ) (6)
cosβ

where ∆λ is an increase in wetted length-beam ratio due to spray, and is determined from a graph
(Larsson et al. 2000). Finally, the bow-down moment equation, following Figure 5 below, can be
apporached as follows:

Figure 5: Forces equilibrium for a planing craft (High speed craft course, KTH, 2018)

ecos(τ + )
 
sinτ
Mh = gm +f (7)
cos cos
 
f
Mf = Rf f f − etan − (8)
cos

4
  
f
Ma = R a f a − etan − (9)
cos

M = Mh + Mf + Ma (10)

where e, f and f f are the arms with which the pressure force, propeller thrust and friction force,
respectively, act around the center of gravity.  is the propeller shaft angle relative to the flow. Ra
and f a are the drag force of the appendage and the arm it acts upon around the center of gravity,
respectively. The moment equation around the center of gravity of the craft consists of hull and weight
related moment, friction related moment and appendage related moment, denoted Mh , Mf and Ma ,
respectively. The aim of the iteration is to achieve a zero total moment. If the result of the moment
around the bow is zero, it means the trim was predicted correctly. Should the resulting bow-down
moment be non-zero, the predicted trim needs to be changed and the iteration starts over. The method
not only predicts the trim of the craft for a certain speed, but also the resistance:

cos(τ0 + )
R = (gmsinτ0 + Rf ) (11)
cos
As previously mentioned, this method serves as a good basis for some basic hydrodynamic prediction.
It does contain simplifications and there are cases where, after experimental work, it has been concluded
that it overpredicts trim and underpredicts resistance (Molchanov, 2018).

2.2 Literature review

The exploration on the topic of high-speed craft has been ongoing for about a century now. This chapter
will serve as a review of the experimental research done in the field of high-speed craft, from its beginning
to the latest, state of the art work. Implicitly, the focus shall follow the HSC hull shape optimization
and development throughout the years.

2.2.1 Hard chines

One of the most recognizable features that distinguishes a planing craft from a displacement or a semi-
displacement craft are hard chines. The concept comes from resistance evaluation. When ships were
given enough propulsive power to plane, it was found that a transom stern and hard chine sides cause
cleaner flow separation at high speeds, thus reducing resistance. Additionally, hard chines induce more
roll damping, which is important for stability underway at high speeds. Second World War was a period
of extensive research and use of hard chines on HSC. (Savitsky, 1985). Afterwards, hard chines were
employed in virtually all HSC research, as can be seen in so many papers and publications. Clement
(1964) used a hard chine model in evaluating spray rails’ effectiveness in drag reduction. Fridsma (1969)
conducted calm water and regular waves tests using hard chined models to define the effects of deadrise,
trim, length-beam ratio etc. In his work, Savitsky (1985) emphasized the importance of hard chines in
high-speed craft design and listed numerous applications in the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, patrol
craft, foreign military and commercial planing craft. White et al (1988) carried out towing tank tests to
measure resistance and seakeeping characteristics of two comparable U.S. Coast Guard hard chine patrol
boats. Almeter (1993) concluded that, among other hull shape properties, the effect of hard chines needs
to be taken into account when deciding on resistance prediction methodology. Grigoropoulos et al (2001)
run a hard chine model in order to compare two methods of measuring bottom pressure on a planing
craft. Taunton et al (2010) performed an experimental study on a series of high speed hard chine planing
hulls in both calm water and waves in order to examine the influence of length-displacement ratio, static
trim and radius of gyration.

2.2.2 High deadrise

Deadrise is also one of the earliest characteristics of planing hulls. One of the first experimental research
on planing craft that received wide attention (Savitsky, 1964) is that of Sottorf (1932). He worked with

5
V-bottom hulls which were designed to reduce shocks related to bottom impact, but increased resistance
by having larger wetted surface than flat plates of the same beam and generated more spray. Research
that followed resulted in significant amount of test data describing hydrodynamics of constant-deadrise
prismatic planing surfaces (Savitsky, 1964). In what is considered one of the most fundamental works
on high speed craft, Savitsky (1964) conducted a series of tests to provide empirical equations to express
relations between many planing variables. A relation was given between deadrise and wetted chine and
keel lengths for defined trim angles, lift coefficient correction which accounts for deadrise was given
and porpoising limit lines were established for given trim angles, deadrise and forward speed. Fridsma
(1969) conducted a series of tests on varying-length, constant-deadrise models to defined the effects of
deadrise, trim, loading etc. He found that for lower speeds, deadrise has virtually no effects on the
response of the planing hull, other than total resistance growing in waves. However, for higher speeds,
it was concluded that, with increasing deadrise angle, the added resistance decreases, heave and pitch
motions are drastically reduced (25% and 50%, respectively, going from 10° to 30° deadrise angle) and
the vertical acceleration reduces by up to 75% from 10° to 30° deadrise boat. Similarly, Savitsky et al
(1976) established that increased deadrise has a generally beneficial effect on rough water performance.
For speed-length ratios of 4 and 6, the added resistance is decreased by 20% for a deadrise angle increase
from 20° to 30°. Motions are damped and vertical accelerations are halved at both bow and center of
gravity by increase in deadrise from 10° to 30°. According to Savitsky (1985), the incorporation of high
deadrise in 1950s was a major breakthrough in planing boat design. Significant hull form advances were
noted with an emphasis on naval patrol boats and ocean racers, which employed a deep-vee hull with
constant deadrise. In another paper, Savitsky (2003) notes that the use of high deadrise angles has
become quite common and that despite their negative effect on calm water resistance, "the improvement
in seakeeping totally justifies their use". Kim et al (2013) performed towing tank tests of three high
speed planing hulls with varying deadrise angles, cross-section shape, length-beam ratio etc. in order to
design a hull which has good resistance and seakeeping performance. It was found that smaller deadrise
angles have a better effect on resistance, but higher deadrise angles are better at seakeeping abilities.

2.2.3 Warped hull

A longitudinally changing deadrise is a feature of a warped hull. Usually, deadrise angle will be smaller
at the stern and then progressively get larger towards the bow, to enhance hull’s wave-piercing abilities.
Savitsky (1985) states that any monohedron (constant deadrise hull) can be improved by adding a
warp towards the bow since the need for deadrise in the bow is always greater than at the stern.
Additionally, too much deadrise at the stern reduces transverse stability. Larsson et al (2010) explains
the benefits of zero and non-zero deadrise of planing hull and concludes that a warped bottom is a good
compromise between the two, where high deadrise bow provides for good seakeeping performance and
low deadrise stern contributes to resistance reduction and transverse stability. Calderon et al (2011)
carried out a towing tank test comparison between a conventional fast supply vessel and a transonic
vessel, a slender, triangular waterplane area hull with maximum beam at the stern. Findings included a
significant reduction in residuary resistance which resulted in doubling the speed in 3.5 m waves at the
same payload and up to 70% reduction of vertical accelerations at high speeds. Aforementioned Kim
et al (2013) experimentally compared three hulls with varying deadrise angles, cross section shapes etc.
In the study, it was concluded that the most favourable hull regarding both resistance and seakeeping
performance was one with a moderately large warp, having deadrise angles of 20°, 22° and 75° at aft
perpendicular, midship and fore perpendicular, respectively. Begovic et al (2014) designed and tested
three warped hard chine and one corresponding monohedral planing hull form in order to evaluate the
effect of deadrise angle variation along the hull length on seakeeping characteristics in waves. The
deadrise angle variation spanned from monohedral one of 16.7° to warped hull deadrise from 9.5° to 35°.
A substantial benefit was obtained by warping the bottom of the hull as up to 50% reduction in vertical
accelerations was obtained. Seo et al (2016) used a warped hull in a series of towing tank model tests
where the aim was to investigate reistance and seakeeping performance of a high-speed monohull. The
hull had a slender wave-piercing bow, round bilge, and small deadrise angle on stern. Spray rails were
mounted to induce hydrodynamic lift force on the bottom and reduce trim angle. It was found that
installing the warp through the wave-piercing bow and the spray rails reduced both running trim and
vertical accelerations in waves.

6
2.2.4 Trim tabs and interceptors

Trim tabs or interceptors are a means of improving seakeeping abilities of a vessel by reducing the
running trim. Wang Long-Wen (1985) evaluated feasibility and effectiveness of a controllable flap (trim
tab) mounted on the transom as a means of controlling the trim. Model tests proved that the flap not
only reduces resistance in various conditions, but also dampens heave and pitch motions. Savitsky (2003)
quantified the effect of controllable flaps on pitch and heave and through towing tank tests found that they
can be reduced by 50% and 70%, respectively. Furthermore, accelerations were decreased up to 65% at
resonant frequency (wave encounter frequency coinciding with hull’s natural frequency). An interceptor
is a slightly different concept with the same goal. Whereas a trim tab is a horizontal plate acting in
the same plane as the bottom of the hull, an interceptor acts perpendicular to the waterplane, Figure 6.
(Tunçer et al, 2016). Karimi et al (2013) investigated the impact of interceptors on high-speed monohull
and catamaran models and confirmed their effectiveness. Extending the stern interceptor by 2 and 3
mm resulted in up to 12% and 19% drag reduction for the catamaran and monohull, respectively. Seo et
al (2013) applied four different dynamic trim control devices on a deep-vee catamaran in an attempt to
reduce resistance. Devices applied were trim tabs, interceptors, transom wedges and integrated transom
wedges-tabs. Towing tank tests saw these four devices applied and it was concluded that interceptors had
the most beneficial effect on the running trim, reducing drag by 5% at design speed and 7.5% at maximum
speed. Avci et al (2016) performed an experimental study on the efficiency of interceptors mounted on
a model of an 18 m motorboat. For a speed range between 2.5 and 5.25 m/s, they obtained a drag
reduction of 1.5% to 11% and running trim reduction of 1.6° to 4.7°. In later work, same authors (Avci
et al, 2019) conducted towing tank tests with interceptors mounted on transversely varying positions
along the transom of the high speed hull. It was found that for Froude numbers below F n < 0.50,
hull’s performance is best without interceptors’ effect. For F n > 1.05, the interceptors would increase
resistance. So, interceptors were found to be beneficial in Froude number range of 0.5 < F n < 1.05,
with drag reduction up to 18%. As speed of the vessel increases, interceptor’s blade height needs to
be decreased for optimal performance. Additionally, it was determined that fluid velocity decreases
transversely from keel to chine, causing the interceptors to have the largest effect when placed closer to
the keel. Authors proposed at least a 3-part separate blade height control due to varying performance
of interceptors from keel to chine.

Figure 6: A typical trim tab (left) and a typical interceptor (right) mounted on transom of a hull
(Tunçer et al, 2016)

2.2.5 Spray rails

As explained earlier, the V-shaped hull decreases the vertical accelerations experienced onboard a HSC,
but it is not ideal in generating lift required to achieve planing mode. One of the most common adjust-
ments to the hull are spray rails (Larsson et al, 2000). A typical geometry of a spray rail is shown on
the figure below:

7
Figure 7: Typical spray rail geometry (Larsson et al. 2000)

Part of the water forward from the stagnation line attaches itself to the hull and creates unwanted
friction, so it is smart to try to separate it from the hull as soon as possible. This is done by the means
of a spray rail. The flow separation has to be done abruptly and to ensure it happens cleanly, point A
on the figure should be sharply designed. As the spray is directed downwards from the spray rail and
back into the water, it creates an opposite, upwards force which in reality is additionally generated lift.
Points B and C should be smoothly designed in order to avoid extra wetted surface and any potential
increase in resistance. Most notable drawback of a spray rail is that it increases the total wetted surface
of the hull and in turn gives a slight increase in total resistance (Larsson et al, 2000).
In one of the early studies about spray rails, Clement (1964) carried out experiments to determine the
performance of spray rails that extend aft from the bow about 70% of the model’s length and those
extending only forward from the stagnation line. It was noted that partly submerged spray rails slightly
decreased resistance at high speed, but increased at low speed, while spray rails placed only at the bow
saw a reduction in resistance of 6% at high speed and no increase at low speed. The author states
that high deadrise (20° or more) changes the effect of spray rails, making the study applicable only
to hulls with deadrise lower than 20°. Also, it was found that the performance was better when the
edges of spray rails were sharpened, confirming what is explained in Figure 7. Savitsky (1985) states
that, with correctly placed spray rails, a round bottom boat can be well designed for both rough water
and planing performance, making spray rails an indispensable design feature. In their work, Seo et al
(2016) performed a series of towing tank tests in order to investigate spray rails’ impact on resistance and
seakeeping performance of a high-speed monohull vessel. Optimum location of spray rails reduced running
trim at design speed by 20% and both heave and pitch motions in head seas. Vertical accelerations at
the fore perpendicular were decreased by 11.9%. It was discovered that spray rails had no negative
effects on resistance in both calm water and waves. However, due to hull’s large length-beam ratio, the
author suggests that manoeuvrability of a conventional high speed vessel could be significantly different.
Lakatos et al (2019) conducted a series of experiments to evaluate the performance of spray rails on
a model of a 19 m craft. Tests were performed for conventionally placed spray rails, rails placed as
extension of the chines and, as they are called in the paper, V-shaped spray rails, which very much
resemble the ones researched in this project. The results of the latter are further discussed in 2.2.7.
Total resistance reduction od 2% and 3% was reported for conventionally placed spray rails and chine
spray rails, respectively.

2.2.6 Steps

Another typical optimization of the hull are so called steps. A stepped hull is characterized by abrupt
transversal steps in the bottom, which generates a number of smaller lift-generating pressure areas, but
also decreases the total wetted surface. Through Savitsky’s method it can be concluded that areas with
a small wetted length to beam ratio are more efficient in generating lift (Larsson et al. 2000). A typical
look of a stepped hull and the effect on the wetted surface can be seen below:

8
Figure 8: Pressure distribution on a stepped hull (Larsson et al. 2000)

There are several other factors that need to be taken into account when dealing with stepped hulls.
It can be concluded by observing the figure above that the hull is supported by longitudinally spread
smaller areas, which provides the craft with substantial longitudinal stability (in some cases it is even
difficult to change trim), while transversal stability can be significantly decreased, as the lifting areas
are more narrow. Also, stepped hulls require a constant air ventilation in the steps, since a stop in air
supply can result in underpressure behind a step and a consequential increase in resistance, which can
be dangerous due to a potential loss of boat stability (Larsson et al, 2000). According to Larsson et al
(2010), some notable accidents have happened due to the inlet for air supply being blocked by waves,
for example.
Clement et al (1992) studied the design of stepped hulls with the aim to refine the lightly loaded hull
forms so that they are suitable for practical, load-carrying purposes as well. He found that for both
monohull and catamaran hull forms, the goal can be achieved by following a design procedure similar
to that of an aircraft. An emphasis is put on a feature of longitudinal camber curvature in order to
obtain high lift-drag ratios in the loaded condition. Furthermore, steps should be properly spaced to
avoid the effect of spray on the afterbody behind the step. Gokcay et al (2003) carried out experiments
for a high speed hull implemented with an artificial air cavity bottom, very similar to a step. It was
determined that a resistance penalty for the hull shape at low speeds is 10% and drops down to 2% at
higher speeds. Drag decrease of up to 20% can be reached by feeding air into the cavity. Savitsky et al
(2010) determined through a series of model tests that a stepped hull offers significant reduction of total
resistance for volumetric Froude numbers F∇ > 5.0. It was reported that for high speeds, hydrodynamic
drag is halved by the use of a single step. Garland (2011) carried out experimental testing of a stepped
and an unstepped version of a high speed prismatic hull. He used different step depths, 2%, 4% and
6% of the beam between chines. It was reported that an unstepped hull is favorable only for volumetric
Froude numbers between F∇ = 1.6, where the author states planing commences and F∇ = 2.68, above
which a stepped hull proves to be more beneficial. A step depth of 4% was determined to be the best
out of three depths and a resistance reduction of 32.3% was noted for the highest tested speed of 31 ft/s.
Morabito et al (2014) performed an experimental study on the feasibility of stepped hull use in special
operations craft, which usually operate at volumetric Froude numbers of around F∇ = 5.0. The step was
located at 25% LOA forward from the transom, which is further aft than typical positioning of a step
but justified for the loading condition of a special operations craft in question. Findings include a 25%
drag decrease at the highest speed tested (beam Froude number Fn = 4.0) and a 10% drag penalty for
lower, hump speed regime (beam Froude number Fn = 2.0). Porpoising limits were found to be similar
to those for conventional planing monohulls. Lee et al (2014) carried out a series of towing tank tests
aiming to understand the effect of displacement and step location on a high speed monohull. Several
different configurations of step heights and positions were tested and all of them showed a drag drop
compared to the unstepped hull. The configuration with the lowest step height forward and highest step
height aft provided the best performance when it comes to resistance. Stagnation line crossing the step
proved to have no significant effect on the performance of the stepped hull. Also, there was no increased
sensitivity to increasing displacement for a stepped hull compared to a conventional deep vee monohull.

2.2.7 Spray deflectors - concept by Petestep

Spray deflectors might be the next step in high speed hull form optimization. A Swedish company
Petestep AB patented this new idea of differently placed spray rails. Conventional longitudinal spray
rails are effective in early flow separation and spray deflection. However, the idea of spray deflectors is to

9
capture the spray and instead of pushing it sideways, deflect it further aft and downwards, thus creating
additional thrust and reducing drag. For optimum performance, these spray deflectors should be placed
parallel to the stagnation line, slightly forward from it. Figure 9 explains the concept, where marked
blue is the pressure area, the edge of the blue area is the stagnation line and marked red is the spray
area, hitting either the spray rails (top picture) or spray deflectors (bottom picutre). Red arrows point
in the direction of spray deflection by the use of these two different configurations.

Figure 9: Comparison between conventional spray rails (top) and spray deflectors (bottom) (Petestep
AB website, 2019)

As a new concept, there is a limited number of research done on the topic of spray deflectors. Olin et
al (2016) presented a study where the applicability of a 2D and 3D CFD simulations are investigated in
spray deflector research. A comparison of results indicated that 2D simulations significantly overestimate
the wetted length which could result in overestimation of deflector’s height. 3D approach showed a total
drag reduction of up to 32% compared to bare hull. Wielgosz (2018) performed towing tank tests in
both calm water and irregular waves to evaluate the performance of spray deflectors. Spray deflector
tests resulted in a different running trim than bare hull tests. The LCG was thus shifted, to obtain equal
trim between the two configurations in order for drag and vertical acceleration comparison to be √ viable.
Calm water tests were run for speed-length ratios between SLR = 4.0 and SLR = 6.0 [kn/ f t] and
yielded a consistent resistance reduction of 10 - 12%. Irregular wave testing was conducted for three
speeds, SLR = 2.0, SLR = 4.0 and SLR = 6.0. Bow accelerations had the highest decrease of 10.8% at
lower tested speed and lowest decrease of 4.9% at highest tested speed. Center of gravity accelerations
saw a decrease of up to 6.3% for lowest speed, but an increase of 2.1% for highest speed. The study
notes that a significant drop in performance is observed when spray deflectors are submerged. In later
work, Wielgosz et al (2018) tried to experimentally validate the numerical research done by Olin et al
(2016). The deflector hull results for drag and lift were rather scattered, so due to lack of repeatability, it
was concluded that the size of the model aimed to physically represent the model in numerical research
(Olin et al, 2016) was too small. The forces generated by the physical model were too small and a clear
benefit of spray deflectors could not be obtained. Molchanov (2018) and Lundmark (2018) conducted
towing tank tests to further evaluate the effect of spray deflectors on a prismatic hull in both calm
water and irregular waves. A modular hull was designed to easily compare the performance of bare hull,
spray rails and spray deflectors. Tests were performed for a range of speeds between F∇ = 3.52 and
F∇ = 6.65. Even though the two spray deflector configurations yielded drag reductions of 15% and 20%
for their respective design speeds, no definite conclusion could be drawn due to the fact that trim was
substantially altered (about 1°) in deflector hull tests. Drag reduction could not be attributed solely to
the effect of spray deflectors as a change in running trim changes the resistance itself. The results of
aforementioned paper by Lakatos et al (2019) will be further discussed here. V-shaped spray rails have
yielded a drag reduction of 4-5% when the rails are not submerged and a drag increase of 7.9% when they
are submerged. The resistance drop is found to increase with decreasing displacement. Additionally, it
is reported that the V-shaped spray rails do not affect the running trim in planing regime.

10
2.3 Project background

This chapter serves as an introduction to the practical problem, but also explains and justifies the
approach to the problem through goal definition and previous years’ results and issue analysis.

2.3.1 Experimental setup

Spray deflector concept has been under research for two years prior to this project. The model used to
conduct the experiments was thus the one used in previous years of the research, to allow for comparison
with previous results. The model, shown in Figure below, was built in 2018 and its design is thoroughly
explained by Molchanov (2018).

Figure 10: Experimental model

The main design idea was a hull capable of generating large amounts of spray resistance compared
to the total resistance. Other design limitations included towing tank dimensions and material and
manufacturing constraints. In order to simplify the design, several hull forms were considered as parent
models and in the end, taking all factors into account, a parent model from Wielgosz (2018) was chosen.
Arguments for this choice relied on simple hull geometry and alignment with Savitsky’s empirical model,
allowing for a higher accuracy in Savitsky’s method when calculating bare hull performance or spray
deflector position. Another advantage of having a parent hull is that it serves as a reference for expected
results.
The model’s most important feature is its modular design. Shown in Figure 11 below, the hull consists
of a watertight main part and an insert. This makes it easy to add or remove spray deflector inserts, so
several different configurations can easily be achieved and tested. Length-beam ratio in spray resistance
generation was evaluated and it was concluded that slenderness is beneficial. However, mass turned out
to be a constraint in choosing the scaling factor with which linear dimensions could be obtained from
the parent hull. Mass was limited to 50 lbs (22.7 kg) by towing tank operators for safe handling in wave
tests. A scaling factor was then chosen based on Froude scaling law and linear dimensions were obtained
from the parent hull.

11
Figure 11: Model in Rhinoceros® (Molchanov, 2018)

Once designed, the hull was manufactured from a closed cell Polyurethane foam using a CNC machine.
Surface finish was made adequate by applying three layers of epoxy resin coating. Inserts are made of
expanded PVC foam.
In the towing tank, the model is placed under a carriage and attached to it by a beam called the heave
post. During experiments, the carriage tows the model in surge direction, while the model is only free
to heave and pitch. Figure 12 shows the model attached to a heave post, with the rest of measuring
instruments mounted. The model is fitted with an inclinometer which measures trim, a drag balance
which measures drag and two accelerometers (at center of gravity and bow) which measure vertical
accelerations. The heave post also contains a spring used to unload weight from the model to achieve
design weight. Additionally, threaded bars are placed at the stern, bow and the heave post for adding
ballast weight in order to change the LCG as needed. All instruments convert their output to voltage
which is then recorded onto a computer through data acquisition system.

Figure 12: Schematic of model setup and equipment (Molchanov 2018)

The towing tank in Davidson Laboratory is one of the fastest high speed craft towing tanks in the world.
Maximum speed is 100 ft/s (30.48 m/s), though due to safety reasons speed rarely exceeds 36 ft/s (11
m/s). The tank is 313 ft (95.40 m) long, 16.4 ft (5 m) wide and 7.5 ft (2.29 m) deep. It is equipped with
an overwater and underwater camera. The latter is directed at a mirror placed at the bottom of the
towing tank, thus able to document the appearance of the running position from underneath, showing
important properties such as the pressure and spray area, stagnation line etc. (Figure 13). The position
of the stagnation line is measured by the use of black marker stripes drawn on the bottom of the hull
with increments of 1 inch (Figure 14).

12
Figure 13: An example of an underwater photograph

2.3.2 Previous work

The aim of research in previous years was inherently the same as it is for this project - evaluate perfor-
mance of spray deflectors, in terms of reduced resistance and dynamic instabilities. This chapter will,
however, focus only on the work done by Molchanov (2018.), since the research was conducted with the
same model, making their results and conclusions valuable as groundwork for this project.
The research by Molchanov (2018.) consisted of testing three hull configurations (bare hull, spray rails
and spray deflectors) in calm water and waves. Spray rails were made in the shape of strips, as shown
in Figure 14 below (left), while spray deflectors were plate shaped (right). For bare hull tests, bare hull
plates were mounted as shown in Figure 11. Results are obtained for the three configurations for same
conditions, such as weight and speed.

Figure 14: Mounted spray rails (left) and spray deflectors (right) (Molchanov, 2018)

Spray deflectors were designed for two design speeds, 23.21 ft/s (7.07 m/s) and 31.65 ft/s (9.65 m/s),
and tested for a range of speeds between 18.99 ft/s (5.79 m/s) and 35.87 ft/s (10.93 m/s). The model’s
design weight was 46.06 lbs (20.89 kg).
The following three graphs summarize the results for calm water tests done in 2018. Figures 15 and 16
show the volumetric Froude number vs. trim and volumetric Froude number vs. drag for all configura-
tions, respectively. Figure 17 shows a comparison between theoretical Savitsky’s prediction of trim and
trim results from bare hull tests.

13
Figure 15: Volumetric Froude number vs. trim - all three configurations (Molchanov, 2018)

Figure 16: Volumetric Froude number vs. drag - all three configurations (Molchanov, 2018)

Figure 17: Savitsky’s trim prediction vs. experimental results - bare hull (Molchanov, 2018)

In Figure 15 one can clearly see that for same speeds deflector hull obtained significantly higher trim,
approximately 1°. So, even though deflector hull experienced somewhat lower resistance, definite conclu-
sions could not be drawn due to the discrepancy in trim. Drag reduction could not be attributed solely
to the effect of deflectors, rendering the results ambiguous.
There are several factors that could have caused said increase in trim. Deflectors’ position was decided
based on Savitsky’s theoretical prediction of stagnation line location and results showed that they were
not ideally placed on the bottom of the hull. A look at underwater photographs discovered that deflectors
were positioned a bit too forward, too close to the stagnation line, often crossing it as indicated with the
red arrow in Figure 18.

14
Figure 18: Deflector hull for Fn=4.3. (Molchanov, 2018)

Another important factor could have been the design of the deflector. Petestep’s official design of the
deflector is tapered, meaning the step thickness increases along the stagnation line from keel to chine.
Deflectors used in 2018 had constant thickness.
The inconsistency between the trim obtained with bare hull experiments and Savitsky’s prediction (Figure
17) is also interesting. Though some researchers have noted that Savitsky’s method can overpredict trim
(Panagiotis, 2016), it has been concluded that the error margin is substantial enough to be indicative
of further issues (Molchanov, 2018). Bare hull was tested with straight plates mounted on the bottom
(Figure 11) and even though the joining was done with care and precision, it is possible that the joints
were not perfectly seamless, allowing for water to potentially enter the cracks and alter the running
position.

15
3 Methodology

3.1 Scope of the research

The scope of this research is to evaluate the performance of spray deflectors for HSC, this will be done
through experimental testing. The running position and drag of the model deflector configuration will
be compared to the bare hull configuration.

3.2 Design weight

One of the first steps in defining the experimental setup is determining the running conditions - speed
and weight. The weight of the model can be increased by adding weights and decreased using a spring
at the heave post. Since the model is not a scaled version of a HSC, the weight could be set freely.
Initially, the same loading as last year was used, to allow for comparison, however, the spring used
last year showed inconsistent behavior. It was thus decided that a spring will not be used in defining
the design weight in this year’s research. The weight has to be defined at the beginning of the project
and kept constant throughout all the tests because changing it changes the running position of the
hull, the pressure area and subsequently the drag, making it impossible to properly compare two hull
configurations with different weights. The model itself, without the bare hull plates and with all the
measuring instruments mounted weighs 34.30 lbs (15.56 kg). At the start of each testing day, the model
is balanced in the air and weights are added as needed in order to achieve zero trim and the LCG at the
heave post. Depending on the hull configuration being tested (bare hull with no plates, bare hull with
plates, deflectors mounted at a certain longitudinal position), the added weight at the stern ranged from
12.5 lbs (5.67 kg) to 13.7 lbs (6.21 kg). Based on insight from previous research, it was clear that in later
tests there might occur a need for additional weight being added either at the bow or at the stern in order
to change the LCG of the hull, so the design weight had to had a bit of "extra" weight, so that it is later
possible to shift the weight longitudinally without changing the total weight of the model. For instance,
the deflector hull tests might yield somewhat higher running trim than bare hull tests (as experienced
in 2018) and then the possibility of changing the LCG could be convenient, in order to match the trim
between the two configurations and obtain comparable results. Design weight was therefore defined at
61.14 lbs (27.73 kg)

3.3 Design speed

3.3.1 Minimum speed

When deciding on design speed for testing, there are several restrictions that need to be taken into
account. The first limitation is a minimum speed at which the hull operates in planing mode. Theoretical
consideration of the planing mode speed limit starts with hull’s resistance and how it changes with speed.
To allow for comparison between different hulls to be possible, the speed-length ratio (SLR) is often
used and defined as SLR = √VLk where speed is in knots and the waterline length in feet (Savitsky,
wl
2003). Ships generate a transverse wave system, travelling at the same speed as the ship. Waves can
be quantified in a similar manner, but what is interesting is their speed length ratio is always equal
to SLR = √VL = 1.34 (Savitsky, 1985). For conventional displacement ship hulls, there thus exists a
speed (SLR=1.34) at which the vessel will generate a wave of the same length as its waterline length.
This speed is a critical speed, a barrier for displacement hulls, because past this speed the wave making
resistance increases at an exponential rate (Figure 19), causing the hull to be very deeply submerged
and therefore struggle to climb its own bow wave. At displacement speed regime, the hull is supported
fully by buoyant forces and drag is predominantly frictional. Flow separation, which increases drag, is
kept at minimum by curving the displacement hull at the stern upwards toward the waterline.(Savitsky,
1985)

16
Figure 19: Resistance v. Froude number for displacement and planing hulls (Molchanov, 2018)

Then, as the speed of the vessel increases, the curved stern causes negative pressures which in turn results
in the stern descending and an increase in trim. Past SLR>1.34, the stern benefits from a sharper,
transom shape, ensuring cleaner and faster flow separation. As the speed increases further, even sharper
buttock lines are employed and the transom should be wider. This semi-planing regime extends from
1.34<SLR<3.0 and dynamic lift plays a significant role in hull support. At full planing speeds, SLR>3.0,
dynamic lift dominates. As SLR increases, the wave making resistance decreases. Cross-sectional V-
shapes of the hull will further decrease slamming loads and enhance rough sea performance. The model
in this research has a waterline length of 5.5 ft (1.68 m), so the speed that corresponds to SLR=3.0
is v = SLR ∗ Lwl = 7 knots, or 11.9 ft/s. In high speed craft research, very often the dimensionless
Froude number is used for comparison between different hulls (Clement, 1964)(Savitsky, 1985)(Almeter
1993)(Savitsky et al, 2010)(Larsson et al, 2010)(Taunton et al, 2010)(Garland, 2011)(Morabito et al,
2014)(Avci et al, 2016)(Lakatos et al, 2019). However, the general length Froude number is of little use,
since the waterline length can significantly change due to a frequent change in trim. So, a volumetric
Froude number is used instead:

v
F∇ = p (12)
g∇1/3

Minimum speed required for full planing mode corresponds to and is then defined as F∇ = 1.25.

3.3.2 Maximum speed

Practical maximum speed limit comes from towing tank’s capability of running the model at a maximum
speed of 100 ft/s (30.48 m/s). Although, a realistic maximum speed for this model size is 36 ft/s (11
m/s).

3.3.3 Optimum speed

A suitable speed range was determined using Figure 20 (Molchanov, 2018). The chart shows spray’s
contribution to total drag (dark blue bars). Spray drag clearly increases with speed. The goal of
this research is to measure total drag change due to change in spray drag, thus the aim is to conduct
experiments at speeds that generate most spray. The higher the percentage of spray drag, the easier it
is to record a drag difference when total drag is measured. In conclusion, it would be most beneficial to
go for as high speeds as possible.

17
Figure 20: Contribution of spray in total drag (Molchanov, 2018)

However, the likelihood of porpoising needs to be considered. Porpoising is an event which can be
defined as self-sustained coupled motion of pitching and heaving (Yoshiho and Katayama, 2000.) which
basically causes the hull to uncontrollably "jump" on the surface of calm water, making a potential
experiment useless. Further discussion on porpoising can be found in Thornhill et al (2000). This was
experienced in previous research by Molchanov (2018). Porpoising is fairly hard to predict, but some
theory surrounding it exists (Savitsky, 1964). The figure below shows the predicted porpoising limit for
20° deadrise prismatic hull.

Figure 21: Porpoising limit for a 20° deadrise prismatic hull (Savitsky, 1964.)

18
The area below the line represents the stable regime where porpoising should not happen. The prediction
takes into account the deadrise angle, trim and the lift coefficient:

2∆
CL = (13)
ρV 2 b2

which consists of the displacement, water density, speed and beam of the planing surface (Savitsky, 1964).
However, there are a lot of uncertainties related to predicting porpoising in this project. Firstly, the
previous research data, where porpoising occurred (red square on the graph), could not be applied to this
research due to the fact that a different design weight had to be used, which changes the displacement of
the hull. Secondly, it has been shown that Savitsky’s method can sometimes overpredict trim (Panagiotis,
2016)(Molchanov, 2018). Finally, it can be seen that porpoising in 2018 happened in the area of stable
regime, according to theory, meaning that the prediction might not always be accurate. The graph can
still be used as a guidance. However, it was decided that choosing design speeds should not be restricted
by this theoretical porpoising limit.

3.3.4 Chosen speed

It was also decided that three design speeds will be determined, in order for deflector performance to
be properly examined at modest and high speeds. Another reason was to safely avoid porpoising. If it
would occur at the highest speed, data from the two lower speeds could still be used. For consistency,
the interval between the three speeds was equal and enough to show a substantial difference in measured
drag, aiming for several different operational profiles of the model.
Having taken all of this into consideration, the design speeds were chosen and are presented in the table
below in the form of volumetric Froude number and imperial and SI units:

Table 1: Design speeds

F∇ V(ft/s) V(m/s)
3.2 20.63 6.29
4.0 25.80 7.86
4.8 30.96 9.44

3.4 The effect of bare hull plates

The testing sequence (discussed below in 3.5) always starts with bare hull tests. For a valid comparison
between bare hull and deflector hull configurations, both test sets need to be carefully prepared and
executed. As such, tests have to be accurate and with no ambiguities. This is the reason why the
uncertainty related to bare hull plates (discussed in the last paragraph of 2.3.2) was explored further.
The question that arose was whether bare hull tests with and without the plates would yield equal drag
and trim results. Theoretically, having equal weight (weight was added to bare hull without plates to
compensate for the missing plates), they should give the same result, supposing that the bare hull plates
were seamlessly done and no water intrusion was allowed through the cracks. The step at the bow caused
by the removal of bare hull plates should not affect the running position of the hull as the whole bow
section runs well above the water surface, thus not influencing the flow.
Nevertheless, tests done with both bare hull configurations did not result in similar trim. The comparison
can be seen in the figure below, alongside with a theoretical prediction of trim by means of Savitsky’s
method.

19
Figure 22: Trim comparison between two bare hull configurations and Savitsky’s method

Tests were conducted for three speeds corresponding to volumetric Froude numbers 3.46, 3.65, 3.84,
while the Savitsky’s method for trim prediction was run for model parameters, design weight and these
three speeds. These speeds were used instead of the current design speeds due to the fact that at that
stage of the project these were considered as design speeds. Later, they were changed due to a change
in design weight. Clearly, non-plated bare hull gave a higher trim with the approximate discrepancy of
0.75-0.8°. Since all of the bare hull testing in 2018 was done with a plated bare hull, the difference in
trim between bare and deflector hulls could also be attributed to this difference in just the bare hull
configurations, because testing the deflector hull means running the non-plated bare hull through water,
with an addition of deflectors, which ideally are completely above the surface of water.
The reason for this difference in trim could have come from many different aspects of this problem. The
most intuitive factor is the fact that bare hull plates are joined with the rest of the model at the bow
step and at the keel, and it is fairly possible that the joints are not perfectly made, allowing for water to
enter the cracks, altering the running position. Another matter is the difference in material of the bare
hull plates and the rest of the model. The model was made from a closed cell polyurethane foam, while
the plates are expanded PVC foam, making the skin friction somewhat different. Also, the skin friction
drag, which acts parallel to the bottom of the hull, is not equal in the two configurations. The moment
it creates around the center of gravity (where heave post is attached to the model) is different due to
the arm it acts upon, which differs between configurations by the thickness of the bare hull plate. This
problem was not thoroughly explored due to time limitations of this project.
Thus, the bare hull was tested without the bare hull plates, in order for experiments to be as consistent
as possible. The conclusion was that the trim inconsistency is related to the bare hull plates. Savitsky’s
prediction method favours this argument as well, which can be seen on Figure 22., where non-plated hull
trim is a much closer match than the plated one. Figure 23 below shows the bare hull both with and
without plates.

20
Figure 23: Bare hull with plates (left) and bare hull without plates (right)

All dimensional hull parameters have now been determined and are shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Defined model parameters

Parameter Imperial units SI units

Length overall Loa 71” 1.80 m
Waterline length Lwl 66” 1.68 m
Beam b 14.2” 0.36 m
Deadrise β 20° 20°
Displacement ∆ 61.14 lbs 27.73 kg
LCG (from transom) 21.6” 0.55 m

3.5 Deflector design

Design speeds are not the only speeds the tests are run for. In order to fully explore the performance
of deflectors, they were tested outside of their design speed as well. Thus, a total of five speeds were
applied to each deflector, two above its design speed and two below. Test speeds are depicted below:

21
Figure 24: Speed range in volumetric Froude number for each deflector with design speeds in bold

Tests are conducted for each speed with three repetitions, to ensure validity and allow for statistical
analysis (further discussed in the following chapter). Unlike the deflector tests, bare hull tests do not
have to be repeated more than three times for overlapping speeds of F∇ = 3.6 and F∇ = 4.4. Each
run is documented by an overwater and underwater camera, monitoring the hull’s behavior, running
position, stagnation line, deflector’s performance etc. Insight is then gathered from photographs and
numerical values of heave, trim and drag recorded by the mounted instruments. Practically speaking, a
time-consuming factor is the fact that between each run, a certain amount of time (between 7 and 13
minutes, depending on the speed) has to pass to allow for water to become completely calm again, after
it was disturbed by the running model.
Design of the deflectors is one of the crucial parts of the project. Due to the imperfections of the bare hull
plates which, at least partly, caused changes in trim, strips were chosen. Moreover, strips are significantly
easier and cheaper to manufacture in the machine shop, but also to replace if it is later found that they
were imperfectly designed, misaligned with the stagnation line or similar.
Looking at underwater photographs from bare hull testing, stagnation line position for each speed can
be determined. Each deflector is designed to be parallel to the stagnation line at the design speed. They
are then taped to the bottom of the hull using double-sided tape, 2 inches (5 cm) forward from where
the stagnation line appeared on the underwater photographs, as suggested by Petestep AB.
Initial design of the deflectors is shown in Figure 25, and attached to the bottom of the hull in Figure
26.

Figure 25: Initial deflector design for F∇ = 4.0 with measurements in inches

22
Figure 26: Initial deflectors on the bottom of the hull

Deflectors strips were initially designed with a 1 inch width and 0.5 inch thickness, see Figure 25. They
had a constant thickness along the bottom of the hull, from keel to chine. They were tapered from tip
to outer edge so they would not detach due to the flow hitting them while the model is reaching its
designated speed. However, an anomaly was discovered while observing the underwater photographs,
shown in Figure 27 below. Though the deflector seems to be properly placed forward from the stagnation
line, the spray is clearly not being deflected.

Figure 27: Underwater photograph of an initial deflector

However, the spray area is still clearly distinguishable from the pressure area. This is due to deflectors
not being tapered down towards the keel, the tip of the deflector at the keel was touching the water
surface as the model was running. This phenomenon is explained with the schematic in Figure 28. The
deflector was placed 2 inches from the stagnation line. With a measured trim of 5°, the distance from
the deflector’s tip at the keel and the surface of the water is 0.17 inches, while the deflector’s thickness

23
is 0.5 inches. Obviously, this means that the deflector’s tip was submerged during these tests and that
tapering towards the keel is needed for deflector to perform properly. The thickness of the deflector at
the keel has to be lower. Tapering was mentioned in Molchanov, (2018) as a possible improvement in
continuation of the project and this proves that it is necessary.

Figure 28: A schematic of the initial deflector’s design flaw - tip at the keel is submerged

The improved deflector design featured tapering down from chine to keel, having a thickness of 0.5 inches
at the chine and 0.1 inches at the keel. Tapering from the tip to the outer edge remained, however, at
the outer edge it was not done down to zero, but to 0.1 inches as well due to machine shop request for
easier manufacturing. The edges were filled with clay to ensure a clean transition and no water intrusion.
Final deflector design can be seen in Figure 29 and fitted to the hull in Figures 30 and 31.

Figure 29: Final deflector design for F∇ = 4.0 with measurements in inches

24
Figure 30: Final deflector design on the bottom of the hull

Figure 31: Final deflector design with tapering

3.6 Results processing

As the model is run through the towing tank, the mounted instruments gather relevant data, drag, trim
and heave. Signals are not recorded from start to finish of one run, but only from when the hull reaches
its designated speed for that run. Acceleration for each run is adjusted so that the hull reaches its speed

25
at about 50 ft (15.24 m) from the start and then the signals are recorded for approximately another 100
ft (30.48 m). Depending on the speed, the recorded signals will span over several seconds. An example
of a recording is shown below. Signals like these are automatically averaged by the computer program
connected to the instruments.

Figure 32: A sample recording of drag, trim and heave for F∇ = 3.8

As mentioned earlier, three repetitions are done for each speed, in order to achieve credible results and
eliminate possible run errors. The International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC, 2014) rules were used,
at least to a degree, for analysis, quantification and validation of obtained results. ITTC offers a range of
such analyses, related to both set up of experiments, measurement methods and instrument calibration
and uncertainty in measurements.
Uncertainty is to be represented by an estimated standard deviation, thus called standard uncertainty.
The best available estimation of several different "n" observations of a "q" quantity is expressed by the
arithmetic mean or average (ITTC, 2014):

n
X
q = (1/n) qk (14)
k=1

The variance and its positive square root, standard deviation, s, characterize the variability of obtained
results or more specifically, the dispersion of result values around their mean:

n
X
s2 = [1/(n − 1)] (qk − q)2 (15)
k=1

Finally, the standard uncertainty can then be calculated as:

s
u(q) = √ (16)
n

where n is the number of observations (repetitions) for a single measurement.

However, there is a reason why this project could not follow ITTC rules to the fullest extent. Certain
rules are often difficult to follow, especially when time is a limiting factor. For example, one of the

26
conditions for repeatability is that the repeat tests are all done within one day of testing, which was not
always possible due to the number of tests done in total. For such tests, where there are factors which
cannot be included in the uncertainty analysis, the rules suggest at least 10 repetitions of a test for a
reasonable estimation of standard deviation. This was also not possible to adhere to simply because
there would be no time to conduct this many tests in the time span of this project.
Since the difference in measured resistance is what is sought, it makes sense that the difference in
resistance should be distinguishable from single results’ variability. For the potential reduction in drag to
be attributed solely to the performance of the deflectors, the relative difference in drag between bare hull
and deflector hull should be significantly higher than the relative difference between two measurements
of drag for equal conditions. Equations (14), (15) and (16) from ITTC (2014) will be used, but the
significance of results will be evaluated following the above explained logic. An example of an uncertainty
analysis done for a test is shown in the Appendix.

27
4 Results and discussion

This chapter shows the obtained results. The results of bare hull tests will be presented first with deflector
hull test results following. Drag, normalized by the displacement of the hull, RT /∆, and trim angles
given in degrees were the main focus of results. The three pairs of deflectors are denoted as deflector 1,
2 and 3, with design speeds F∇ = 3.2, F∇ = 4.0 and F∇ = 4.8, respectively. Colors in graphs assigned
to specific configurations stay consistent throughout the chapter.

4.1 Bare hull experiments

Bare hull test results for a range of speeds presented in Figure 24 are given in Figures 33 and 34 below,
compared to code implemented theoretical prediction method by Savitsky (1964).

Figure 33: Drag comparison between bare hull experiments and Savitsky’s method

Figure 34: Trim comparison between bare hull experiments and Savitsky’s method

The obtained results show that Savitsky’s method underpredicts drag and overpredicts trim, as reported
by Molchanov (2018) as well. Relative differences between Savitsky’s method and bare hull tests for
drag and trim are given in Figure 35. The underprediction of drag increases with speed and reaches
up to 9% for highest speeds. Relative trim difference is largest for lower speeds, about 6.5% and then
decreases with speed to approximately 2% for high speeds. When used for design purposes, it is clear
that Savitsky’s method provides a good estimate of trim, especially when F∇ > 3.4. For drag, however,
the method provides a fair estimate only for speeds up to F∇ = 3.4, with an error margin of 5%.

28
Figure 35: Relative drag and trim differences between bare hull experiments and Savitsky’s method

Underwater photographs of bare hull experiments for speeds F∇ = 3.2, F∇ = 4.0 and F∇ = 4.8 are given
in Figure 36. The speeds correspond to design speeds for deflectors. It can be seen that the stagnation
line gets narrower with increase in speed. The wetted chine length decreased by 7 inches (17.8 cm)
between lowest and highest speed, while the wetted keel length shift was marginal, less than an inch (2.5
cm), indicating the reduction in wetted surface.

Figure 36: Underwater photographs from bare hull tests for F∇ = 3.2 (top), F∇ = 4.0 (middle) and
F∇ = 4.8 (bottom)

29
4.2 Deflectors experiments

The first deflector hull experiments are presented in Figures 37, 38 and 39. Absolute values of drag and
trim are compared to bare hull test results.

Figure 37: Drag comparison between bare hull and first deflector hull tests

Figure 38: Trim comparison between bare hull and first deflector hull tests

As can be seen, conclusive drag reduction occurred only for deflector 1. Deflector 2 decreased resistance
at design speed and lower speeds, but increased it at higher speeds. Deflector 3 increased resistance in
all but two lowest speeds tested for. This can be viewed more clearly in Figure 39, which shows the
relative drag comparison. Trim changed insignificantly between the configurations. This proved what
was hypothesized in 3.4. The trim inconsistency that happened in 2018 was related to bare hull plates.
Negligible discrepancy in trim allows for fully comparable drag results between bare hull and deflector
hull.

30
Figure 39: Relative drag difference between bare hull and first deflector tests

However, it can be observed in Figure 39 that even for deflector 1, the drag decrease is not substantial,
apart from the lowest speed of F∇ = 2.8, for which the reduction was 4.9%. Interestingly, none of the
deflectors had the highest benefit at their design speed. Underwater photographs of deflector 2 tests for
F∇ = 3.6, F∇ = 4.0 and F∇ = 4.4 are shown in Figure 40.

Figure 40: Underwater photographs from deflector 2 tests for F∇ = 3.6 (top), F∇ = 4.0 (middle) and
F∇ = 4.4 (bottom)

31
It is clear that the deflectors are successfully capturing and redirecting spray. The middle photograph in
Figure 40 shows that the deflectors are parallel to the stagnation line. In the top photograph, the speed
is lower, thus the stagnation line angle becomes larger and it appears that the stagnation line is crossing
the deflector. It is interesting to note that this is also the speed at which deflector 2 produced the largest
drag reduction. At the bottom photograph, as speed increased, the stagnation line angle decreased and
the stagnation line is diverging from the deflectors at the chine. The drag performance was the lowest
for this speed.
The reason why only deflector 1 configuration provided positive performance was further investigated.
Even though the longitudinal distance between the stagnation line and the deflectors is equal for all
configurations, the perpendicular distance varies between them, see Figure 41.

Figure 41: A schematic of perpendicular distance between stagnation line and deflectors and improved
deflector locations

The blue and red lines on the schematic of a half-model represent the stagnation line and the deflector,
respectively. The angle of the stagnation line, α, can be obtained from underwater photographs by
measuring the wetted keel and chine lengths. The longitudinal distance from the stagnation line to
the deflectors, denoted as y, was defined as 2 inches (5 cm) for the first set of deflector experiments.
Simple trigonometry then gives the perpendicular distance, denoted as x. As shown, the perpendicular
distance was largest for deflector 1 configuration, which exhibited best performance. For further tests,
it was decided that deflectors 2 and 3 would be positioned further forward, approximately following the
perpendicular distance of 0.85 inches from deflector 1. However, in order to be able to precisely place the
deflectors on the bottom of the hull, the longitudinal distance had to be rounded to a full or half-inch,
due to the fact that marker stripes are drawn on the bottom of the hull with a 1 inch distance between
them. Therefore, new set of deflector hull tests were conducted with a longitudinal distance of 2.5 and 3
inches for deflectors 2 and 3, respectively. The results are shown in Figure 42 below. The performance
of deflector 3 clearly improved for all tested speeds with a drag reduction of 1-1.5%. Best performance
occurred at the design speed. However, the efficiency of deflector 2 stayed approximately the same for
F∇ = 3.8 and F∇ = 4.0 and declined for other speeds.

32
Figure 42: Relative drag difference between bare hull and deflector hulls 2 and 3 with improved deflector
location

Underwater photographs (Figure 43) were examined to better understand why there was no significant
change in deflector 2 performance before and after improving the location. For deflector 3, a clear change
in deflectors’ location can be seen, while for deflector 2, the location change seems subtle, despite the
added 0.5 inch of longitudinal distance between the stagnation line and the deflectors. The trim was
checked for tests before and after improving the deflector 2 position and it did not change. There is a
possibility that deflectors were not perfectly positioned longitudinally in either the first or the second set
of tests for deflector 2. Since the first improvement in location of deflector 2 was inconsequential, it was
decided that the location would be improved once more. As explained in Figure 41, the new longitudinal
distance between stagnation line and deflector 2 was set to 4 inches, denoted as second improvement.

Figure 43: Underwater photographs from deflector 2 (left) and 3 (right) tests at design speed, before
(top) and after (bottom) improving the location

The results of the final improvement in location of deflectors 2 are given in Figure 44, jointly with the
other two deflector hull results. As shown, the efficiency of deflector 2 substantially increased for all
speeds. Drag difference of 1.1-3.25% was noted with decreasing speed.

33
Figure 44: Relative drag difference between bare hull and all deflector hulls with improved deflector 2
and 3 location

Due to the rising trend in drag benefit with decreasing speed for deflector 2, but also because of the
exceptional 4.9% drag reduction for the lowest tested speed for deflector 1, additional tests were done
for all three deflectors at lower speeds. In order to investigate the performance further, deflector 1 was
tested for one lower speed, F∇ = 2.6, deflector 2 for four lower speeds: F∇ = 2.8, F∇ = 3.0, F∇ = 3.2
and F∇ = 3.4 and deflector 3 for four lower speeds: F∇ = 3.6, F∇ = 3.8, F∇ = 4.0 and F∇ = 4.2. Prior
to additional deflector tests, bare hull experiments had to be performed. The results of absolute and
relative drag difference between bare hull and deflector hull configurations are given in Figures 45 and
46, respectively.

Figure 45: Absolute drag difference between bare hull and deflector hulls for extended range of speeds

34
Figure 46: Relative drag difference between bare hull and deflector hulls for extended range of speeds,
with design speeds in bold

A similar trend can be observed for all deflector configurations, an increase in drag reduction for de-
creasing speed and then diminishing benefit at a certain speed. The three deflector pairs exhibited best
performance at F∇ = 2.8, F∇ = 3.2 and F∇ = 4.0 with resistance reductions of 4.9%, 4.3% and 4.4%,
respectively. None of the deflectors performed best at their design speed, indicating that the design can
be improved.
Carried out tests show that moving the deflectors further forward from initial 2 inches from the stagnation
line increased efficiency. Positioning deflectors 3 and 4 inches forward from the stagnation line proved
to be especially beneficial for higher speeds for deflectors 2 and 3, respectively. The relation between
the stagnation line and deflectors is crucial in determining deflectors’ performance. It has been observed
that designing the deflectors to be parallel to the stagnation line might not be optimal with regard to
drag reduction. Each deflector pair exhibited the largest resistance decrease at lower speeds than they
were designed for. Lower speeds were characterized by convergence of the stagnation line and deflectors
towards the chine or by crossing of the two. It has thus been concluded that, additionally to placing the
deflectors further forward, it could be advantageous to design them with an angle to the stagnation line,
instead of parallel, with a bigger distance at the keel than at the chine. To be able to investigate the
effect of these distances more thoroughly than underwater photographs allow, the deflector hull’s running
position was drawn using Rhinoceros® and experimental data. In Figure 47, underwater photographs
and Rhinoceros drawings are shown for deflector 2 tests for F∇ = 3.2, F∇ = 3.8 and F∇ = 4.4. Drag
reductions achieved for those speeds were 4.3%, 2.9% and 1.1%, respectively. The drawings make it
easier to see that at all three speeds, the deflectors were partially submerged. Even though they were
not designed to be partially submerged, it is clear that, as the stagnation line crosses the deflectors closer
to the keel, the drag reduction grows. Since the aft, submerged part of the deflector does not contribute
to spray deflection and, as submerged, can only increase resistance, it is possible that the drag reduction
comes mostly from the forward part of the deflector. If that is the case, removing the aft part might
boost the drag reduction even further, as then it would not increase drag as an appendage. However,
as seen in Figures 46 and 47, as speed decreases, the increasing angle between the stagnation line and
the deflectors can be a benefit only to a certain point, at which a too large portion of the deflector
is submerged and the resistance starts increasing. Another advantage of submergence is the fact that
deflectors create a small step, behind which the pressure area is decreased, similar to what occurs in a
stepped hull. Nevertheless, trying to avoid contact between the stagnation line and the deflectors could
be a gainful effort. This could be achieved by positioning the deflectors further forward, but it could also
lower the magnitude of spray redirection. Another possibility is to decrease the deflector’s thickness at
the chine, which could also reduce the deflector’s capability of capturing and redirecting spray.

35
Figure 47: Underwater photographs and corresponding Rhinoceros drawings for deflector 2 tests with
speeds of F∇ = 3.2 (top), F∇ = 3.8 (middle) and F∇ = 4.4 (bottom)

36
5 Conclusion

In this project, spray deflection technology was taken a step further. Bare hull and deflector hull exper-
iments were conducted in calm water and compared for drag and trim. Tapered spray deflectors were
designed and mounted on a modular hull previously used for the same project.
Bare hull tests were compared to Savitsky’s prediction method and it was found that Savitsky’s method
overpredicts trim, by up to 6.5% and underpredicts drag, by up to 9%.
Deflector hull tests did not change the running position of the hull, compared to bare hull tests. Therefore,
a change in resistance can be attributed solely to the effect of spray deflectors. Their position in relation
to the stagnation line was improved in two occasions and final results showed a drag reduction ranging
from 0.9-4.9%.
The design of deflectors could be improved. The thickness at the chine resulted in partial submergence
of the deflectors at almost all tested speeds. Alongside thickness, changing both the distance between
the stagnation line and the deflectors and the angle between them could improve the overall efficiency.
Further experiments are needed to fully understand the effect of each of the mentioned factors and to
reach the optimal design of the deflectors.
Nevertheless, this research provided further understanding of the effect of spray deflectors on planing
craft. Future work could see this innovative concept achieve even better performance and bring about a
change in high speed craft design with lower power requirements and a lesser environmental impact.

37
6 Future work suggestions

The current design of spray deflectors provided a fair performance compared to bare hull tests. However,
further experiments could boost their advantages. A number of improvements can be made and some of
them are listed here, as suggestions of future developments of the project:
Deflector’s geometry
The current deflectors are tapered down from 0.5 inches at the chine to 0.1 inches at the keel. While
tapering proved to be necessary, the thickness at the chine could be varied and the effect observed.
A lower thickness would allow the deflector to be placed closer to the stagnation line without getting
partially submerged, while a higher thickness could be advantageous in capturing and redirecting a larger
portion of spray. This could be analyzed by designing a range of deflectors with varying chine thicknesses
and then testing the deflector hull at equal running conditions. Furthermore, since the highest efficiency
was obtained for lower speeds at which the stagnation line was crossing the deflector, it is possible that
the gain comes mostly from the forward part of the deflector, while the aft part only causes an increase
in resistance as it is submerged. The current deflectors could be cut to extend only from the keel up
to a certain point towards the chine. Additionally, the current deflectors are designed to have the spray
deflecting surface perpendicular to the hull and it might be worth investigating whether a different angle
could increase the efficiency.
Deflector’s position
Observing the deflector’s position might be the next logical step in future research. An increase in
performance was reported by repositioning the deflectors to 3 and 4 inches forward from the stagnation
line instead of 2. Mounting them even more forward could prove to be beneficial. Moreover, deflectors
designed to be at an angle to the stagnation line could also be an improvement. The largest drag
reduction obtained in this project occurred at lower speeds, at which the stagnation line is no longer
parallel to deflectors, as is the case at design speeds.
Wave testing with a different hull
The same concept could be tested in waves. The impact of spray deflectors on vertical accelerations and
resistance in an unsteady sea state is of great importance, since a real-life high-speed craft often operates
in rough water. This would, however, require a different hull. The current hull’s step at the bow makes
it unsuitable for wave experiments and the bare hull plates proved to be faulty. There are a number of
prismatic hulls at Davidson laboratory that could be utilized.
CFD analysis
With ever growing computational power, the advantages of numerical studies are numerous and validating
this research with the use of computational fluid dynamics is inevitable. Even though CFD sometimes
struggles with correctly predicting phenomena related to planing, such as the position of the stagnation
line, the potential is indisputable. The ease of both hull and deflector design are some of the assets that
make CFD suitable for a large number of studies in a short period of time. Numerical means could also
be applied jointly with experimental work, providing a quick assessment of phenomena to later be tested
in the towing tank.

38
Appendix - Uncertainty analysis and results validity

This section give more thorough information about the uncertainty analysis done for the results of this
project. The following tables show the measurements of drag, trim and heave for bare hull and all three
deflector configurations with their respective standard uncertainties, calculated as explained in 3.6.

Table 3: Bare hull average results with respective standard uncertainties

Speed [F∇ ] Drag [N] u [N] Trim [deg] u [deg] Heave [mm] u [mm]
2.8 48.923 0.192 6.563 0.043 45.725 0.745
3.0 48.866 0.242 6.053 0.047 49.503 0.695
3.2 49.034 0.326 5.722 0.043 51.713 0.709
3.4 49.818 0.119 5.481 0.011 53.699 0.873
3.6 50.872 0.200 5.109 0.018 55.966 0.674
3.8 52.031 0.134 4.806 0.018 57.653 0.887
4.0 53.726 0.071 4.566 0.013 59.061 0.881
4.2 55.246 0.164 4.254 0.019 60.344 0.975
4.4 57.467 0.039 4.055 0.012 60.088 0.746
4.6 59.741 0.142 3.815 0.007 61.321 0.680
4.8 63.031 0.078 3.775 0.022 62.625 0.816
5.0 65.498 0.165 3.483 0.017 63.734 0.632
5.2 68.907 0.043 3.392 0.021 64.513 0.709

Table 4: Deflector 1 average results with respective standard uncertainties

Speed [F∇ ] Drag [N] u [N] Trim [deg] u [deg] Heave [mm] u [mm]
2.8 46.539 0.062 6.614 0.006 49.586 0.204
3.0 48.100 0.203 6.050 0.017 50.581 0.403
3.2 48.243 0.202 5.718 0.015 52.561 0.359
3.4 48.829 0.059 5.450 0.008 54.137 0.279
3.6 50.007 0.075 5.099 0.006 57.608 0.239

Table 5: Deflector 2 average results with respective standard uncertainties

Speed [F∇ ] Drag [N] u [N] Trim [deg] u [deg] Heave [mm] u [mm]
3.6 49.212 0.150 5.134 0.009 56.361 0.976
3.8 50.502 0.042 4.836 0.005 58.119 1.162
4.0 52.504 0.030 4.600 0.007 59.268 1.274
4.2 54.421 0.091 4.304 0.003 60.241 1.423
4.4 56.821 0.060 4.135 0.012 60.929 1.163

Table 6: Deflector 3 average results with respective standard uncertainties

Speed [F∇ ] Drag [N] u [N] Trim [deg] u [deg] Heave [mm] u [mm]
4.4 56.971 0.012 4.115 0.008 61.465 0.479
4.6 58.945 0.035 3.859 0.003 62.561 0.377
4.8 62.108 0.058 3.780 0.009 64.550 1.367
5.0 64.552 0.131 3.526 0.015 65.297 1.381
5.2 68.091 0.045 3.426 0.011 66.094 1.201

39
Additionally, what was explained in the last paragraph of 3.6 is shown in Figure 48. For each speed, the
highest obtained drag reduction is considered, irrespective of deflector configuration. It can be seen that,
for every speed, the relative difference in drag between bare hull and deflector hull is significantly higher
than the relative difference between 2 most spread drag measurements from bare hull tests. This proves
that the drag reduction is not a random error happening due to results’ variability, but the impact of
deflectors.

Figure 48: Relative drag difference between both bare hull and deflector hull and 2 most spread drag
measurements from bare hull tests

The reason why the spread is lower at higher speeds is the way drag balance is calibrated. It is calibrated
for a reference value, which is the user’s best estimation of the highest expected drag. This means that
the drag balance is best calibrated for higher speeds, at which the highest drag occurs. The accuracy
of the instrument is somewhat reduced for lower speeds. In practice, a large number of experiments are
performed one after another for varying speed, therefore the drag balance cannot be perfectly calibrated
for each tested speed.

40
References

[1] Molchanov, B. Benchmark Testing of Spray Deflection Technologies for High-Speed Planing Craft,
Master’s thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2018.
[2] Lundmark, S. Experimental validation of spray deflectors impact on performance of high speed craft
planing hull, Master’s thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2018.
[3] Larsson, L., Eliasson, R. Principles of yacht design, Chapter V, 2nd ed. A&C Black, London, 2000.
[4] Savitsky, D. Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls, Marine technology 1, 71–95, 1964.
[5] Savitsky, D. Planing Craft, Naval Engineers Journal, Chapter IV, 1985.
[6] Clement, E. P. Reduction of planing boat resistance by deflection of the whisker spray, (No. DTMB-
1929). David Taylor Model Basin 1964.
[7] Fridsma, G. A systematic study of rough-water performance of planing boats, (No. 1275). Stevens
Institute of Technology, Davidson Laboratory, 1969.
[8] White, J., Savitsky, D. Seakeeping predictions for USCG hard chine patrol boats, Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, New York Metropolitan Section, 1988.
[9] Almeter, J. Resistance prediction of planing hulls: State of the art, Marine Technology, Vol. 30, No.
4, pp. 297-307, 1993.
[10] Grigoropoulos, G. J., Damala, D. P. Measurement of bottom pressures on planing craft, 10th Intl.
Conference on Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements, 2001.
[11] Taunton, D. J., Hudson, D. A., Shenoi, R. A. Characteristics of a series of high speed hard chine
planing hulls - Part 1: Performance in calm water, The International Journal of Small Craft Tech-
nology 152(2), 2010.
[12] Sottorf, W. Experiments with planing surfaces, NACA TM 661, 1932.
[13] Savitsky, D., Brown, P. W. Procedures for hydrodynamic evaluation of planing hulls in smooth and
rough water, Marine Technology 13, pp. 381–400, 1976.
[14] Savitsky, D. On the subject of high-speed monohulls, Presented to the Greek Section Of the Society
Of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Greece, 2003.
[15] Kim, J., Young Kim, S., You, Y., Rhee, K., Hwan Kim, S., Kim, Y.-G., Design of high-speed planing
hulls for the improvement of resistance and seakeeping performance, International Journal of Naval
Architecture and Ocean Engineering 5, pp. 161–177, 2013.
[16] Larsson, L., Raven, H. C. Principles of Naval Architecture Series: Ship Resistance Flow, Society
of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME), 2010.
[17] Calderon, A., Hedd, L. Theoretical and experimental investigation on resistance of transonic hulls,
IX HSMV, Naples, 2011.
[18] Begovic, E., Bertorello, C., Pennino, S. Experimental seakeeping assessment of a warped planing
hull model series, Ocean Engineering 83, 1–15, 2014.
[19] Seo, J., Choi, H.-K., Jeong, U.-C. Model tests on resistance and seakeeping performance of wave-
piercing high-speed vessel with spray rails, International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean
Engineering 8, pp. 442–455, 2016.
[20] Long-Wen, W. A study on motions of high speed planing boats with controllable flaps in regular
waves, International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 32, No. 365, 1985.
[21] Tunçer, A., Tayyar, G. T., Ünsan, Y. Interceptor design and control for the high speed craft, Istanbul
Technical University, 2016.
[22] Karimi, M. H., Seif, M. S., Abbaspoor, M. An experimental study of interceptor’s effectiveness on
hydrodynamic performance of high-speed planing crafts, Polish Maritime Research 2(78), Vol 20; pp.
21-29, 2013.

41
[23] Seo, K.-C., Gopakumar, N., Atlar, M. Experimental investigation of dynamic trim control devices
in fast speed vessel, Journal of Navigation and Port Research, Vol. 37, No.2, pp. 137-142, 2013.
[24] Avci, A. G., Barlas, B. The usage of interceptors in high speed crafts, 1st International Congress on
Ship and Marine Technology, Istanbul, Vol. 1, 2016.
[25] Avci, A. G., Barlas, B. An experimental investigation of interceptors for a high speed hull, Interna-
tional Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 11, pp. 256-273, 2019.
[26] Lakatos, M., Sahk, T., Kaarma, R.,Tabri, K., Kõrgesaar, M., Andreasson, H. Experimental testing
of spray rails for the resistance reduction of planing crafts, 7th International Conference on Marine
Structures, Croatia, 2019.
[27] Clement, E. P., Koelbel Jr., J. G. Optimized designs for stepped planing monohulls and catamarans,
High performance marine vehicle conference, HPMV ’92, 1992.
[28] Gokcay, S., Insel, M., Odabasi, A. Y. Revisiting artificial air cavityconcept for high speed craft,
Ocean Engineering 31, pp. 253–267, 2003.
[29] Savitsky, D., Morabito, M. Surface wave contours associated with the forebody wake of stepped
planing hulls, Marine Technology, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 1-16, 2010.
[30] Garland, W. R. Stepped Planing Hull Investigation, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engi-
neers, 119, pp. 448-458, 2011.
[31] Morabito, M. G., Pavkov, M. E. Experiments with stepped planing hulls for special operations craft,
The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 156, Part B2, Intl. Jorunal of Small Craft Technology,
2014.
[32] Lee, E., Pavkov, M., McCue-Weil, L. The Systematic Variation of Step Configuration and Displace-
ment for a Double-step Planing Craft, Journal of Ship Production and Design, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.
89–97, 2014.
[33] Olin, L., Altimira, M., Danielsson, J., Rosén, A. Numerical modelling of spray sheet deflection on
planing hulls, Proceedings of the IMechE 231, pp. 811–817, 2016.
[34] Wielgosz, C. Experimental Evaluation of Novel Spray Deflectors for Planing Hulls, Master’s thesis,
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2018.
[35] Wielgosz, C., Fürth, M., Datla, R., Chung., U., Rosén, A., Danielsson, J. Experimental valida-
tion of numerical drag prediction of novel spray deflector design, 13th International Marine Design
Conference, Finland, 2018.
[36] Panagiotis, A. Planing Hull Resistance Calculation: The CAHI Method, SNAME Greek Section
Meeting, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2016.
[37] Yoshiho, J., Katayama, T. Porpoising Oscillations of Very-High-Speed Marine Craft, The Royal
Institution of Naval Architects, Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society, series A, vol.358,
no.1771, pp. 1905-1915, 2000.
[38] Thornhill, E., Veitch, B., Bose, N. Dynamic Instability of a High-Speed Planing Boat Model, Marine
Technology, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 146-152, 2000.
[39] ITTC Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Experimental Hydrodynamics, 27th International
Towing Tank Conference, Recommended Procedures and Guidelines, Procedure 7.5-02-01-01, 2014.
[40] ITTC General Guideline for Uncertainty Analysis in Resistance Tests, 27th International Towing
Tank Conference, Recommended Procedures and Guidelines, Procedure 7.5-02-02-02, 2014.
[41] ITTC Practical Guide for Uncertainty Analysis of Resistance Measurement in Routine Tests, 27th
International Towing Tank Conference, Recommended Procedures and Guidelines, Procedure 7.5-02-
02-02.2, 2014.

42
www.kth.se