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

net/publication/280562198

CENTREBOW DESIGN FOR WAVE-PIERCING CATAMRANS

Conference Paper · December 2013

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3840.2406

CITATIONS READS

3 7,709

6 authors, including:

Jalal Rafie Shahraki Giles Thomas

Australian Maritime College University College London
10 PUBLICATIONS 55 CITATIONS 328 PUBLICATIONS 2,750 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Irene Penesis Walid Amin

University of Tasmania Australian Maritime College
125 PUBLICATIONS 1,623 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 244 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jalal Rafie Shahraki on 30 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CENTREBOW DESIGN FOR WAVE-PIERCING CATAMRANS

Jalal Rafie Shahraki, Giles Thomas, Irene Penesis, Walid Amin, Australian Maritime College, University of
Tasmania, Launceston, Australia
Michael Davis, School Of Engineering, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
Gary Davidson, Revolution Design Pty Ltd, Hobart, Australia

SUMMARY

Wave-piercing catamarans are used extensively for both defence and commercial sea transportation. Advantages such
as large deck area, stability and high speed make these catamarans suitable for transporting roll-on roll-off cargo and
passengers. However, issues such as the impact of the bow into the water when operating in large waves, better known
as wetdeck slamming, can affect their mission capability and can cause structural damage.
Different strategies are used by the designers to reduce wetdeck slamming in catamarans. Wave-piercing catamarans
often have a centrebow that provides reserve buoyancy under the wetdeck in the bow to reduce heave and pitch motions
and avoid deck diving in following seas. Designing an efficient centrebow is crucial for these vessels to reduce motions
and minimise structural loads.
To evaluate the effect of various hull forms on motions and slamming loads, a hydroelastic segmented model was
designed and constructed. This segmented model is a scaled model of a 112m INCAT wave-piercing catamaran and has
two transverse cuts and a separate centrebow. The centrebow segment was equipped with two six degree of freedom
force/torque sensors to allow for slam loads to be measured. Three centrebow volumes (lengths) were designed and
tested in head seas in the AMC towing tank in regular waves. The results show a significant variation in slam loads
when comparing the three centrebow lengths, with the highest loads found on the longest centrebow, caused by larger
water volume constrained between the centrebow and demihulls. Results also showed that the longer centrebows have
higher pitch motions in slamming conditions.

NOMENCLATURE conditions. Therefore, it is necessary to have clear insight

into the motions and loads prior to designing a large high
TCR Tunnel Clearance Ratio speed catamaran.
CBVR Centrebow Volume Ratio
CLR Centrebow Length Ratio The relative motions between the ship and water surface
WPC Wave-Piercing Catamaran in large waves may be so large that the forefoot is
HSM Hydroelastic Segmented Model exposed; a substantial impact or ‘slam’ occurs after re-
DOF Degrees Of Freedom entry of the body as the hull strikes the surface. These
Fz Vertical Centrebow Force (N) slam impacts may cause high local pressure and damage
Fx Horizontal Centrebow Force (N) to the vessel structure [1]. The slam events are short in
VBM Vertical Bending Moment duration but can create a sudden high force. The relative
FWD Forward angle between the body surface and the fluid is very
C.B Centrebow important in regard to the slam magnitude; the smaller
Hw Wave Height (mm) the angle, the higher the corresponding surface pressure
and vessel deceleration [2]. Apart from the possibility of
1. INTRODUCTION damage, slamming has been recognized as the primary
reason for ships voluntary slowdown in adverse
Catamarans currently have a wide range of applications conditions in head seas or bow-quartering seas.
for sea transportation including car and passenger ferries,
pleasure boats and military vessels. Due to widely spaced
demihulls they offer good stability and a large deck area,
which is used for carrying passengers and cargo
depending on their particular application. Using
lightweight materials, such as aluminum and composites,
provides these vessels options to travel efficiently at high
speeds. However, passenger comfort, vessel operability
and structural strength in waves are major issues still
need to be understood and researched further. The
structural strength of catamarans becomes more critical
as the size of the vessel increases and if the vessel Figure 1: INCAT 112m wave-piercing catamaran
operates at higher speeds or in harsh environmental (www.incat.come.au)
Slamming on ships is usually divided into bottom, bow-
flare, breaking wave impact and wetdeck slamming
based on its whereabouts on the structure [3]. Due to the
special configuration of catamarans, environmental load
cases vary from conventional monohull vessels. Waves,
depending on their direction and severity, can induce
very large stresses on the catamarans structure. Among
various load cases, slamming is the cause of the largest
structural stress induced on catamarans. Local damage to
the wetdeck structure and global damage can occur in
rough seas due to severe wetdeck slamming in
catamarans [4, 5]. As an example, Figure 2 shows the
damage occurred to bow ramp and wetdeck structure of
the 63m Ocean Lala in Taiwan waters in 2010 because of
severe wetdeck slamming [6].
Figure 2: Ocean Lala, the catamaran ferry losing the bow
structure from severe wetdeck slamming in Taiwan
waters
Due to the nonlinearity of catamarans motions in high
seas with respect to wave height and vessel speed,
randomness of the sea waves, rapid transient nature of
slamming phenomena and the complexity of catamaran
hull forms, designing catamarans to withstand slamming
loads involves some uncertainties; especially for large
high-speed wave-piercing catamarans where the design
criteria are not yet clear or sufficiently accurate [7-9].
INCAT Tasmania is a world leader in building large
high-speed Wave-Piercing Catamarans (WPC). The
design style that INCAT has adopted uses a centrebow
and surface-piercing demihull bows, offering low
wetdeck height and low drag. Narrow bow water-plane
area and a low entry angle elliptical bow are the main
characteristics of these demihulls. They reduce the
resistance at high speed and reduce motions at high wave
encounter frequencies. However, due to their slender
design, there can be low innate reserve buoyancy in the
bow region of the demihulls to resist large pitch motions;
this has led to the introduction of centrebows. A
centrebow is a volume in the vessel bow between the
demihulls, protruding vertically downwards. As the
vessel bow moves downwards in the waves, the
centrebow acts as reserve buoyancy, reducing the
motions. There are many large high-speed catamarans in
operation using this hull feature but little is known about
the influence of the design of the centrebow.
It is proposed that several parameters, such as tunnel
height, demihull shape and centrebow shape, can affect
the wetdeck slamming behaviour of large catamarans.
For INCAT Tasmania, the issue of what configuration of
hull form, specifically the centrebow shape and tunnel
height required to improve seakeeping and reduce slam
loads, has become particularly relevant. To approach this
problem, various existing hull forms of WPC’s are
analysed to identify the important hull parameters
(variables) and their effect. The methodology presented
in this work to investigate the influence of these hull
variables includes hydroelastic model development and
experimental tests in a towing tank.
2. DESIGNING LARGE HIGH-SPEED
CATAMARANS FOR SLAMMING:
EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION
Australia has been the world pioneer in building large
high-speed catamarans and a review of different
approaches to design for improving seakeeping
performance and minimising wave loads is presented
here. An exploratory approach is taken by looking at the
major vessel characteristics and the evolution of the
designers’ approach to this problem.
One approach is to use semi-SWATH hull forms and Z-
shape demihull bows [10]. The water plane area is
minimised to reduce motions in high frequency waves.
The Z-shape bow has a fine entry to reduce hull
resistance and also provides reserve buoyancy in forward
part of the ship. Figure 3 shows the Z-shape bows in a
41m catamaran. There is also a mild flare above the
water line in the forward half of the demihulls, providing
reserve buoyancy to act against large pitch motions.
Figure 3: Trinidad and Tobago 41m Water Taxi built by
Austal-Ships (www.Austal.com).
A high tunnel clearance and a mild longitudinal
curvature in wetdeck profile are other measures taken to
mitigate slamming. As seen in Figure 4 the tunnel
clearance is defined as the relative distance between the
wetdeck and calm water level at the design waterline.
Figure 4: Typical bow section of catamarans with a high
tunnel clearance
By increasing the wetdeck height it is expected that in Table 1. INCAT catamarans explored in this work
the severe sea conditions the water surface will not
Demihull Displacement
impact the wetdeck to initiate large slam events. There Vessel name
Length (m) (tonnes)
are drawbacks to this approach, since increasing the SFM 27m WPC 26.00 60
height of the wetdeck to avoid slamming can create SFM 29m WPC 28.77 70
practical complications, such as increasing the height of SFM 40m WPC 39.60 150
the vehicle deck above the wharf. 74m WPC 61.45 850
78m WPC 64.90 950
Various demihull bow shapes have been used by INCAT 81m WPC 67.30 1100
Tasmania: conventional bow shapes and semi-oval wave- 85m WPC 80.34 1380
piercing bows. In INCAT’s more recent catamarans, the
86m WPC 76.70 1250
demihulls commence with a relatively long semi-oval
91m WPC 81.54 1400
volume that is mainly underwater in the bow (see Figure
96m WPC 86.3 1700
1) that pierces the water and encountered waves leading
98m WPC 92.40 1800
to both low resistance and low wave impacts on the
112m WPC-Overload 105.60 3000
demihulls. In these WPCs, the demihulls are
112m WPC 105.60 2600
characterised as having little reserve buoyancy above the
125m WPC (conceptual) 118.80 3550
waterline as illustrated in the bow section in Figure 5.
130m WPC (conceptual) 123.60 3640
This feature helps to reduce the motion response to short
wave lengths.
Each INCAT WPC has a unique centrebow shape and
volume. The centrebow volume is defined as the volume
contained between the centrebow surface and the
extended horizontal flat wetdeck plane. The Tunnel
clearance Ratio (TCR) and Centrebow Volume Ratio
(CBVR) are defined as non-dimensional values by
Equation (1) and Equation (2),

Figure 5: Typical INCAT wave-piercing catamaran bow (1)

section. Semi SWATH demihulls and centrebow are the
main characteristic of these catamarans
Although a small water-plane area results in reduced
motion in short wave lengths, there may be insufficient
reserve buoyancy to prevent the vessel from experiencing
large pitch motions, especially in following seas where
deck diving can occur. To counteract this, a centrebow
has been introduced, acting as extra reserve buoyancy at
the bow of the vessel. The wetdeck is also modified in
the fore part of the vessel with an upward slope towards
the bow giving increased tunnel clearance. This results in
two arch-shaped tunnels between each demihull and the
centrebow. Longitudinally orientated chines are also used
on the centrebow to direct the water sideways in the early
stages of an impact. The centrebow stem profile is
designed to stay out of the water to reduce calm water
resistance, but close enough to the water surface for a
fast response to motions. The stem profile of the
demihulls makes a jaw shape curve which is referred to
as the jaw-line.
(2)
INCAT WPCs tend to have relatively low tunnel heights
compared with conventional (high tunnel height)
catamarans as may be seen comparing Figure 4 and
Figure 5. The trend of these two parameters versus vessel
length is shown in Figure 6 where the CBVR and TCR
tend to both increase with demihull length for lengths
less than 40m and then decrease after 80 m. It can be
concluded that the larger the TCR, the larger the
centrebow volume becomes. This is because the
centrebow volume has to increase to fill the higher tunnel
clearance as the centrebow keel remains close to the
water surface. The main reason for limiting the tunnel
height has been the practical limitations such as loading
and discharging Ro-Ro cargo and also the aim for
reduced structural weight [11].

Over time vessel lengths have increased to provide larger

payloads. Table 1 shows some of INCAT-built
catamaran details. Note that the 125m and 130m WPC
(118.8m and 123m demihull length), listed in the table
are currently in the concept design stage.

Figure 6: INCAT catamarans tunnel clearance ratio and

centrebow volume ratio
From a review of WPC designs, it is evident that
parameters such as tunnel clearance, centrebow volume,
centrebow length, jaw-line profile and unprotected area
have varied significantly through the evolution of these
vessel designs. However, a clear evaluation of the
different designs on the basis of full-scale studies is not
possible due to the difficulty of conducting full-scale
experiments for many reasons, such as complicated
instrumentation and measurement processes, not having a
controlled testing environment and difficulties inherent
in relating the structural response of the vessels to slam
loads [12].Therefore it is not possible to easily
investigate the influence of hull form on slam behaviour
in full-scale trials.
Improving the seakeeping and slamming behaviour of
large WPCs requires a methodical investigation of the
effect of design parameters under controlled test
conditions. Therefore, as described in the following
section physical model experiments were carried out
using a hydroelastic segmented model designed to allow
different hull forms to be compared by towing tank tests.
In the present work, variations of centrebow length were
investigated.
3. HYDROELASTIC MODEL DESIGN TO
INVESTIGATE HULL FORM VARIATION
Ship model testing offers the opportunity to investigate
slam behaviour with greater control of the environmental
and operational conditions than is possible in full-scale
trials. In addition the model may be more extensively
instrumented and tested using more revealing techniques
than a full-size vessel. Some work exists on monohulls
for improving bow flare shape and general body form for
seakeeping; such as Kapsenberg et al. [13], Hermunstad
et al. [14] and Bereznitski [15]. However, less work is
published on the effects of catamaran hull form on
seakeeping, slamming and structural loads [16, 17].
In order to measure wave loads and replicate the
dynamic response to slamming, a hydroelastic model is
required [18]. Structural vibration modes should be
correctly modeled and load measuring instruments are
required. Hydroelastic Segmented Models (HSM) have
rigid segmented hulls and replicate the full-scale vessel
fundamental modal frequencies. The model motions,
wave induced loads and structural vibratory response of
the vessel due to severe slamming can thus be measured.
Successful research has been conducted with these
models, such as that of Dessi et al. [19-21] on a fast ferry
and a patrol boat. Hermunstand, Aarsnes and Moan [22]
designed and tested a 5m catamaran HSM that had two
transverse cuts and two longitudinal cuts in which 5DOF
load cells were installed to measure the model response
due to wetdeck slamming.
Matsubara and Lavroff [23, 24] developed a 2.5m HSM
of a 112m INCAT WPC. The model has two transverse
cuts and thus three rigid segments per demihull. The
centrebow was isolated from the demihulls to measure
slam forces. The model shell was built from a sandwich
panel of carbon-fiber layers and Divinycell foam core.
Over 2000 runs in waves have been completed with this
model and its structure has shown good resilience in
being exposed to harsh slamming conditions. Modal
response and wave loads [23, 25], the effect of
hydroelasticity on the motions, motions, and vertical
bending moment response of the model in regular waves
[24], pressure mapping of the centrebow section in
various wave heights and speeds [26], and vessel
response in irregular seas [27, 28] were investigated with
this model. Lessons learnt from this model [29] were
taken into consideration to design and construct a new
HSM.
A new 2.5m HSM of the 112m INCAT WPC was
designed and built to investigate the effect of hull form
on slamming and seakeeping behaviour of the model. As
seen in Figure 7, the cuts were made at 40% and 60% of
the length of the model from the transom. Fabricated
aluminum square section beams were employed between
the segments to provide the elasticity of the model and to
measure the Vertical Bending Moments (VBM) in the
cuts. Aluminum backbone beams were also fitted in each
demihull to ensure the segments rigidity and provide a
strong links mounting. The centrebow was also isolated
to enable isolation of slam forces on the centrebow for
load measurements.
Figure 7: Three segment model layout with backbone
beams and a separate centrebow
The first modal frequency of the model was achieved by
tuning the elastic links dimensions to 14.7Hz, which was
close to the scaled full-scale whipping frequency of
2.2Hz. A photo of the model is shown in Figure 8. The
model was built with carbon-fiber layers with Divinicell
foam core. The sealing between the segments was
achieved by applying first a double sided tape on the
hull, then a latex band to bridge the segment gap and
finished by use of water proof tapes on both sides. This
method ensured effective sealing without transferring
loads between the segments.
Figure 8: The 2.5m carbon-fiber three segment
hydroelastic segmented model in the towing tank
It has been noted through video filming that the model at 112m WPC (105.6m demihull length) with 21% CLR
higher speeds tended to run into waves rather than and it is referred to as the “parent centrebow”.
experiencing slamming due predominantly to pure pitch
and heave motions. This indicates that there can be a
significant horizontal slamming force present on the
centrebow depending on operating speed. The new
model has a new centrebow load measuring system that
employs 6DOF force/torque sensors to allow
measurement of both vertical and horizontal slam
components of the slam forces. Two aluminium
transverse T-beams locate the two 6DOF force/torque
sensors and the centrebow as seen in Figure 8 and Figure
9.

Figure 10: The three designed model scale centrebows

Figure 9: Profile view of the isolated centrebow and its
load measuring system via two 6DOF force/torque
sensors
The centrebow vertical forces (Fz) and the horizontal
forces (Fx) were measured by adding the forces of the
two 6DOF force/torque sensors. The calibration of this
system showed less than 1% error in measuring vertical
forces and it could predict the location of the forces
within 0.05% of the model length. To account for
centrebow mass inertia loads during the tests, a piezo-
electric accelerometer was used to measure the
accelerations on the centrebow.
3.1 MODEL HULL FORM VARIATIONS
and their non-dimensional parameters compared to full-
scale vessels
The new centrebow lengths were created by removing a
6.72m (150mm model-scale) section from the end of the
parent centrebow model to make a “short centrebow” and
extending the body lines of the parent centrebow aft for
6.72m by adding model centrebow segments under the
wetdeck to make the “long centrebow”. Figure 11
illustrates how the added and removed sections create the
three centrebow lengths. The CLR covered by this
variation is 6.4% higher and lower than the parent
design. The final outcome of the design and construction
of three centrebow lengths is shown in Figure 12.

As described earlier, WPCs are designed and built with

different hull parameters. A major design objective of
this work was to be able to model changes in these hull
form parameters without changing other particulars of
the demihulls. The major parameter, centrebow volume,
was considered in the present slamming investigation by
variation of bow length. This parameter for model-scale
design was chosen from a range of full-scale vessel Figure 11: Creation of three centrebow lengths by adding
values. and cutting out 150 mm pieces from the parent
centrebow truncation. The hatched area shows the parent
centrebow volume
In larger INCAT WPCs, the centrebows are usually
truncated at their largest sectional area within the
forward third of the vessel. The centrebow length is
defined as the distance between vessel centrebow most
forward tip and the centrebow aft truncation. To have a
dimensionless value the Centrebow Length Ratio (CLR)
is defined as Equation (3).

(3)

As shown in Figure 10, the centrebow length has tended Figure 12: The centrebow model with variable bow
to reduce as the vessel length increases. This reduction in lengths
centrebow length follows the decrease in the centrebow
volume for larger vessels. This HSM is modeled on the
 4. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND
RESULTS

The 1/44.8 scaled HSM was tested with 27.7kg

displacement at the AMC towing tank which has 100m
length, 3m width and 1.4m water depth. The regular
encountered waves had 60 mm height (2.67m full-scale)
and the model was towed at 1.53m/s speed (20 knots full-
scale) in headseas. One static wave probe and two
moving wave probes measured the waves. The model
motions were measured by two Linear Variable
Differential transformers (LVDT) attached to two tow
posts, allowing the model to heave and pitch freely. The
VBMs were measured via strain gauges installed on the
elastic links between the model segments. During the
runs, a total of 32 channels of data including 9 pressure
signals from the centrebow were recorded with a 5kHz
sampling rate.

Figure 13 shows a sample time series of the pitch,

centrebow keel relative distance to water surface,
centrebow relative velocity, VBM of the forward cut and
vertical centrebow forces for parent centrebow
configuration at wave encounter frequency of 1.3Hz. As
seen, wetdeck slamming shows itself as a sharp peak in
the centrebow forces. This slamming excites the
whipping vibration of the model, seen as harmonic
oscillations in centrebow forces and the VBM signals. A
kink in results of relative velocity, immersion and pitch
is also evident following the slam.

Figure 14 shows vertical slam forces in a slamming event

for the three centrebows at the same environmental
condition. As seen, before wetdeck slamming occurs, the
centrebow keel enters the water; the upward forces
gradually increase until the sudden impact of wetdeck
slamming occurs. This severe slam occurs when the Figure 13: Sample time series of one slamming condition
displaced water becomes constrained under the arch way (speed=1.53m/s, Hw=60mm, wave encounter
between the hulls. frequency=1.3Hz)

Also it is seen that the slam forces are larger for the long
centrebow and smaller for the shorter centrebow. The
reason for this could be the larger volume of water which
gets restrained between the centrebow and demihulls
under the long centrebow due to the volume extension
behind the parent centrebow. In the short centrebow
however, the displaced (upwash) water from the
centrebow mainly escapes from the sides where it is not
enclosed by the demihulls.

Figure 14: Comparison of a slam forces in the same

condition slam event between the three centrebows
(speed=1.53m/s, Hw=60mm, wave encounter
frequency=1.3Hz)
Figure 15 shows the comparison of the three different
centrebow responses in the pitch motion and VBM peak
values. As with the slam forces, the VBM loads are
stronger for the longer centrebows and smaller for
shorter centrebows. This is as might be expected as the
VBMs are significantly affected by slam induced loads.
The interesting result is for the pitch motions in
slamming condition. The largest centrebow volume
induces largest pitch motions. This could be explained by
the fact that the larger upward slam force affects the
upward vessel bow motion and pushes the bow back up
higher after a slam event. In non-slamming conditions,
this relationship is not true and hydrostatic stiffness
forces on the main hulls would dominate the motions.
Figure 15: The pitch and VBM response of the three
centrebows in peak slamming condition (speed=1.53m/s,
Hw=60mm, wave encounter frequency=1.43Hz)
5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper summarises an investigation of the effects of
hull form on seakeeping and slam loads on large wave-
piercing catamarans. An exploratory study on the design
approaches taken by catamaran designers shows that
tunnel clearance and centrebow volume are two of the
key parameters for controlling motion and sea loads. To
study the effect of these parameters, an experimental
approach using a hydroelastic segmented model testing
was undertaken. The tank test results showed that in
slamming conditions, the larger centrebow volume
induces higher slam loads with larger motions. The
reason for such behaviour was the larger volume of water
constrained under the archways which created high slam
loads. With the shorter centrebows, the displaced water
by the centrebow exits from the archways over the demi-
hull bows and does not become constrained between the
centrebow and demihulls. However, the larger bows are
very effective in eliminating deck diving and green water
over the bow.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Revolution Design Pty
Ltd. and INCAT Tasmania for providing information
regarding INCAT vessels, and the University of
Tasmania and the Australian Research Council for
financial support.
7. REFERENCES
1. A. R. J. M. Lloyd, Seakeeping: Ship Behaviour
in Rough Weather. Chichester: Ellis Horwood Limited,
1989.
2 R. Zhao and O. Faltinsen, "Water entry of two-
dimensional bodies," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol.
246, pp. 593-612, 1993.
3. V. Bertram, Practical Ship Hydrodynamics:
Butterworth Heinemann, 2000.
4. G. Thomas, M. Davis, D. Holloway and T.
Roberts, "Transient dynamic slam response of large high
speed catamarans," in Proceedings of FAST 2003, The
7th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation,
Ischia (Italy), 2003, pp. B1-B8,
5. G. Thomas, M. Davis, D. Holloway, N. L.
Watson, and T. Roberts, "Slamming response of a large
high-speed wave-piercer catamaran," Marine
Technology, vol. 40, pp. 126-140, 2003.
6. Newspaper Article; The China Post; Ferry
accident could have been avoided: MOTC; T. C. P. n.
staff; August 10, 2010
7. S. E. Heggelund, T. Moan and S. Oma,
"Determination of global design loads for large high-
speed catamarans" Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering
for the Maritime Environment, vol. 216, pp. 79-94, 2002.
8. G. Davidson, T. Roberts and G. Thomas,
"Global and Slam Loads for a Large Wave piercing
Catamaran Design," Australian Journal of Mechanical
Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 155-164, 2006.
9. T. Roberts, N. L. Watson and M. Davis,
"Evaluation of sea loads in high speed catamarans,"
presented at the Proceedings of Fast97 , 4th international
conference on Fast Sea Transportation, Sydney,
Australia, 1997.
10. www.Austal.com.(2012).
http://www.austal.com/Resources/PromotionSlides/4f0f3
1b7-eecd-4a8c-9e1a-bd11db612022/windfarm-brochure-
web.pdf.
11. Personal Communication, G. Davidson,
Revolution Design Pty Ltd., 2012
12. G. K. Kapsenberg, "Slamming of ships: where
are we now?," Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci, vol.
369, pp. 2892-919, Jul 28 2011.
13. G. K. Kapsenberg and S. Brizzolara, "Hydro-
elastic effects of bow flare slamming on fast monohull,"
presented at the 5th International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation, FAST'99, Seattle, Washington, USA,
August 31- September 2 1999.
 14. O. A. Hermundstad and T. Moan, "Numerical 27. G. Thomas, S. Winkler, M. Davis, D. Holloway,
and experimental analysis of bow flare slamming on a S. Matsubara, J. Lavroff, and B. French, "Slam events of
Ro–Ro vessel in regular oblique waves," Journal of high-speed catamarans in irregular waves," Journal of
Marine Science and Technology, vol. 10, pp. 105-122, Marine Science and Technology, vol. 16, pp. 8-21, 2010.
2005.
28. B. French, "Slamming of large high-speed
15. A. Bereznitski, "Slamming: The role of catamarans in irregular waves," PhD thesis, Australian
hydroelasticity," International Shipbuilding Progress, vol. Maritime College, University of Tasmania, 2011.
48, pp. 333-351, 2001.
29. G. Thomas, S. Matsubara, M. Davis, B. French,
16. M. R. Davis and J. R. Whelan, "Computation of J. Lavroff, and W. Amin, "Lessons Learnt through
wet deck bow slam loads for catamaran arched cross design, construction and testing of hydroelastic model for
sections," Ocean Engineering, vol. 34, pp. 2265-2276, determining motions, loads and slamming behaviour in
2007. sever sea states," presented at the Hydroelasticity in
Marine Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 19-21 September,
17. J. R. Whelan, "Wetdeck slamming of high-
2012.
speed catamarans with a centrebow," PhD Thesis,
University of Tasmania, 2004.
18. O. M. Faltinsen, Hydrodynamics of High-Speed
Marine Vehicles: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
19. D. Dessi, "experimental analysis of the wave-
induced response of a fast monohull via a segmented hull
model," 2003.
20. D. Dessi, "Experimental identification of wet
bending modes with segmented model tests," in 3rd
International Conference of Fast Sea Transportation,
FAST'95, Lubeck-Travemunde, Germany, 1995, C. F. L.
Kruppa, Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft
21. D. Dessi and D. D'Orazio, "Modal parameters of
ship global modes: model-scale and full-scale
estimations," in Hydroelasticity in Marine Technology,
Tokyo, Japan, 2012, K. Takagi and Y. Ogawa, The
University of Tokyo
22. O. A. Hermundstad, J. V. Aarsnes and T. Moan,
"Hydroelastic analysis of e flexible catamaran and
comparison with experiments," presented at the Third
International Conference of Fast Sea Transportation,
FAST'95, Lübeck-Travemünde, Germany, September 25-
27, 1995.
23. J. Lavroff, "The slamming and whipping
vibratory response of a hydroelastic segmented
catamaran model," PhD Thesis, University of Tasmania,
Hobart, 2009.
24. S. Matsubara, "Ship motions and wave induced
loads on high speed catamarans," PhD, PhD thesis,
Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania,
Launceston, 2011.
25. J. Lavroff, M. Davis, D. Holloway and G.
Thomas, "The whipping vibratory response of a
hydroelastic segmented catamaran model," presented at
the 9th International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation, FAST2007, Shanghai China, 23-27
September, 2007.
26. W. Amin, "Non-linear unsteady wave loads on
large high-speed wave piercing catamarans," PhD thesis,
University of Tasmania, 2009.

View publication stats