This article was downloaded by: [Australia Maritime College] On: 10 September 2008 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number

778557058] Publisher Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ships and Offshore Structures
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t778188387

Practical evaluation of resistance of high-speed catamaran hull forms—Part II
P. K. Sahoo a; S. Mason b; A. Tuite b a Australian Maritime College, Launceston, Australia b Incat Crowther Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia Online Publication Date: 01 January 2008

To cite this Article Sahoo, P. K., Mason, S. and Tuite, A.(2008)'Practical evaluation of resistance of high-speed catamaran hull

forms—Part II',Ships and Offshore Structures,3:3,239 — 245
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17445300802263831 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445300802263831

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The level to which the resistance prediction tool can be utilized during the designing of high-speed catamarans was further determined through the analysis of the results. S.edu. whose operation is based around thin ship theory. Launceston. resistance.au ISSN: 1744-5302 print / 1754-212X online Copyright C 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10. b Incat Crowther Pty Ltd.075/ (Log10 Rn − 2)2 Total resistance coefficient Wave resistance coefficient for catamaran configuration Residuary resistance coefficient Froude number (based on length) Froude number based on volumetric displacement Acceleration due to gravity. (2007). such that resistance parameters such as CT or RT / could be estimated with some degree of accuracy for any model existing within the parameter space.com . 3.sahoo@amc. and the limitations and areas of effectiveness for each of the resistance methods have been determined in relation to the vessels tested. 9. wave resistance estimation as illustrated in Part I of this study by Sahoo et al. Sydney. Email: p. Keywords: catamaran. Throughout this study. wave resistance.informaworld. r In computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method. Australia ( Final version received 21 May 2008) Downloaded By: [Australia Maritime College] At: 00:22 10 September 2008 This study attempts to extend the analysis of several resistance prediction procedures based on experimental work carried out by researchers and. B/T . No. in which resistance data for a range of Froude numbers are analysed for geometrically similar models with varying L/B. computational fluid dynamics Nomenclature At B BT CB CF Immersed transom area Demi-hull beam at the waterline Beam-draught ratio Block coefficient CB = ∇/LBT International Towing Tank Conference ’57 ship model correlation line CF = 0. Tuiteb a Australian Maritime College.1080/17445300802263831 http://www. as follows: r Statistical analysis of experimental data. The results obtained from each of the resistance prediction methods have been investigated.81 m/s2 Half waterline entry angle in degrees partial form factor as used in catamaran resistance prediction tool CATRES Waterline length Length/beam ratio (demi-hull) Slenderness ratio Total resistance to displacement ratio Separation (measured between demihull centre planes) Separation ratio (between demi-hull centre planes) S 1+k 1 + γk y α βM δW ∇ Introduction CT CWCAT CR Fn Fn∇ g iE Kpi Wetted surface area Form factor Viscous form factor for catamarans Vertical coordinate A correction factor dependent on type of stern Deadrise angle at amidships in degrees Transom wedge angle Displacement Volumetric displacement In current practice. there are three generally accepted methods for the determination of the resistance characteristics of any vessel. September 2008. Sahooa∗ . CFD analysis by use of SHIPFLOW and a computational analysis is software package CATRES. Australia. Masonb and A. CB and/or L/∇ 1/3 values. which behaves as a numerical towing tank. wave resistance data could be obtained more readily since rapid transformation of hull form parameters (within parameter space) L or LWL L/B or LWL /BXDH L/∇ 1/3 RT / s s/L ∗ Corresponding author. the primary objective of validating the resistance equations developed in Part I of this study has been achieved.Ships and Offshore Structures Vol. All the methods used have been analysed and compared with results obtained from towing tank tests. subsequently.K. 239–245 Practical evaluation of resistance of high-speed catamaran hull forms—Part II P. 3.

δ W Type of hull form NPL round bilge Chine Equation 13 and Table 11 of Part I Equation 17 Part I and Table 20 of Part I Equation 21 Part I and Table 25 of Chine Round bilge.5–2. CATRES CATRES is a resistance prediction method.31 0.41–1.2 1.5–2. (1994) 7.80 6. By comparing the results obtained from these various sources.71 16–38◦ CWCAT Part I Residuary Table 17 of Part I resistance of catamaran.55–13.60 1.30–12. method (1994) Table 1 depicts the summary of range of parameters and its use in the regression model. Range of validity for catamaran configuration. This will be achieved by determining the resistance characteristics of three different catamaran hull forms that are currently in operation in the high-speed ferry industry.48 Equation 7 and Table 7 of Part I Equation 8 and Table 8 of Part I Zips (1995) 7.397 43.5–2.K. method and the accuracy of the total resistance obtained at various Froude numbers. which was developed by the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands for use on semi-planing catamarans with symmetrical hull forms.40–0.0–15.240 P.68 40–49 2. cost and time. in particular the regression equations. (2004) 10.46–0.5 0.4–10.50 23–44◦ 5. NPL. reference from the transom. Sahoo et al.1 6. optimising hull forms.0–15. National Physical Laboratory. The total resistance of the vessel is determined through the summation of four separately determined resistance components: RW = Twice the wave resistance of a single demi-hull RWi = Wave interference resistance RHS = Hydrostatic resistance for the drag of an immersed transom RFR = Viscous resistance. SHIPFLOW and CATRES are examples of CFD analysis tools used in determining the wave resistance of marine vessels.80–15.5 1. It is the purpose of this study to provide a comparison of a variety of resistance calculation methods.47–2.55 Pham et al. All three methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Parameters L/B L/∇ 1/3 B/T CB LCB/L (%) Deadrise angle at amidships β M Half angle of entrance in degrees 1 + γk Molland et al. . the effectiveness and accuracy of the resistance prediction methods. the characteristics of each resistance prediction Summary of various methods Molland et al. as illustrated in Part I of this study.56 1. both graphically and numerically. utilizing thin ship theory.60 16–27◦ Schwetz and Sahoo (2002) 8. r Application of amended Michell’s integral or slender body (thin ship) theory to high-speed marine vessels.0 8. there still remains the necessity to validate the results. (2001) 10.5 0.6 iE 1. CR 0–12◦ Transom wedge.1–38 Sahoo et al. can be undertaken easily and data harvested within a short span of time. and ultimately to validate a series of resistance regression analysis equations previously developed in Part I. Results obtained from these sources need to be validated for accuracy and any potential sources of uncertainty so as to have a degree of confidence in these results.27–9.50–0.30–9.40–20. Although CFD and analytical methods are becoming more accurate and are being recognized as legitimate sources for the calculation of ship resistance and. it is possible to compare. semi-swath and chine Round bilge Note: LCB indicates longitudinal centre of buoyancy. which are primarily concerned with accuracy.5 0. could be achieved. By doing this.0 6.04–11. Downloaded By: [Australia Maritime College] At: 00:22 10 September 2008 Table 1. thereby.

372 26 1:14 Jet Cat Express (Catalina Express) (2621) 39.61 0. the sources produce a flow field that satisfies the hull boundary condition. they can be represented by a distribution of Kelvin sources in their centre planes. obtained from the velocity potentials induced in the Kelvin sources.033 10. obtained from the linearised Bernoulli equation. CATRES introduces a correction for the resistance incurred due to the hydrostatic pressure of the flow. The vessel particulars are shown in Tables 3 and 4.461 37 1:26. The viscous resistance (RFR ) is approximated by CATRES through the following formula: RFR = 1 ρSV 2 (1 + αKpi ) (CF + CA ) . (2) where At = immersed transom area.68 1. Main particulars of three chosen catamarans. When combined.Ships and Offshore Structures Table 2. For an immersed transom. Test models The three vessels chosen to undergo analytical and experimental testing are all Incat Crowther-owned and Incat Sydney-designed passenger ferries that are currently operating in the United States of America as shown in Table 2.117 206.73 1.934 10. Particulars of vessels. The vessels were chosen because of their high speed.781 57.34 2.49 37.64 0. as Results The hull forms of the three vessels have all undergone calm water resistance tests at the Australian Maritime College Table 3. Hull form characteristics of three chosen catamarans. The resistance is then found by integrating the perturbation pressure over the hull. Parameters Length/beam ratio Slenderness ratio Beam/draft ratio Block coefficient L/B L/∇ 1/3 B/T CB Seastreak 3. 2 and 3. ferry nature and the fact that towing tank tests on these three vessels had been conducted previously.642 8 2.5 New York Water Taxi (2602) 20.44 1.31 2. where the effect of the second hull is accounted for by the addition of another plane of Kelvin sources.636 1.34 0.28 0.66 6. clear of the transom not being equal to zero. name (ID) Parameters Seastreak (2352) Waterline length (m) Displacement (t) Draft (m) Beam waterline (m) Beam waterline (demi-hull) CB Service speed (knots) Model scale 37.5 1:40 Table 4. 2 (1) per Equation (2): RHS = −ρg At ydAt .838 182.304 1.003 2.60 5.49 .79 6. Numerical differentiation is used to determine the perturbation velocities (velocity differences with respect to the ship speed). The wave interference resistance is calculated in a similar manner. Vessel Seastreak New York New York Water Taxi Jet Cat Express (Catalina) Yard built Gladding Hearn Shipbuilders Gladding Hearn Shipbuilders Nichols Bros Boat Builders Area of operation Manhattan—Central New Jersey New York Long Beach—Catalina Island 241 Downloaded By: [Australia Maritime College] At: 00:22 10 September 2008 The values of the wave resistance and the wave interference resistance are both determined using thin ship theory. Vessel’s operating locations.461 New York Water Taxi 2.37 0.372 Jet Cat Express (Catalina express) 3.2 0. The line plans of the vessels are shown in Figures 1. Due to the slenderness of the hulls.

The results obtained from the towing tank tests were non-dimensionalised so that these could be presented and compared with the regression models developed in Part I of this study. Line plan for vessel 2352—Seastreak. The results for all resistance methods have been plotted together (RT / against Fn∇ ) to provide a simple graph that could be easily interpreted. Baseline Baseline Figure 3. Downloaded By: [Australia Maritime College] At: 00:22 10 September 2008 Ship Hydrodynamic Centre. the results obtained from the regression equations provide a relatively even spread of precision in relation to the results obtained from the towing tank results. which have been taken to be the datum for all comparisons as towing tank tests are considered to be the basis of any comparative analysis.K. Baseline Baseline Baseline Figure 2. Line plan for vessel 2621—Catalina Express. Sahoo et al.242 P. Baseline Figure 1. . Line plan for vessel 2602—New York Water Taxi. Discussion As can be seen from Figure 4 (Seastreak).

CATRES compares favourably whereas SHIPFLOW consistently overpredicts the experimental data. It can be seen that the percentage difference obtained from the method of Schwetz and Sahoo (2002) in comparison to the towing tank results is approximately 10–15%. with the method of Pham et al.5. the methods of Pham et al. the data from various methods seem to fluctuate appreciably from experimental Figure 5. The methods of Sahoo et al. (2004) and Pham et al. Throughout the speed range. RT / against Fn∇ for various methods (New York Water Taxi.Ships and Offshore Structures 243 Downloaded By: [Australia Maritime College] At: 00:22 10 September 2008 Figure 4. As in both the previous cases. (2001) can be seen to be slightly more accurate than that of Schwetz and Sahoo (2002). whereas the curve of towing tank resistance values is almost linear in nature. 2602). although both these methods underpredict the results of the towing tank data. (2004) results at both low and high volumetric Froude numbers. yet both underpredict the total resistance by a considerable amount. RT / against Fn∇ for various methods (Seastreak. 2352). The curve obtained from the CATRES results does not match any of the other methods rising far sharper than the other predictions and levelling to eventually underpredict the towing tank results above a volumetric Froude number of approximately 2. almost identically. with both resistance curves increasing at a decreasing rate. (2001) and Schwetz and Sahoo (2002) greatly underpredict the total resistance right across the speed range. . (2004) and SHIPFLOW methods show curves that are almost identical in form as that of the towing tank curve. (2001) falling away from both the towing tank results and the Sahoo et al. The results obtained from the Sahoo et al. while constantly producing results with a higher value of total resistance. The method of Schwetz and Sahoo (2002) can be seen to follow the trend of the towing tank results. As can be seen from Figure 5 (New York Water Taxi).

Sahoo et al. determined that with some refinement and optimisation of the regression equations. 1. bearing in mind that the regression models were developed on the basis of certain types of hull form. (2) In general. the equations could . SHIPFLOW returns higher values of total resistance compared with towing tank data except for New York Water Taxi. (4) CATRES. both between methods for a particular vessel and compared with the different vessels. data as shown in Figure 6 (Catalina Express). Some conclusions that can be drawn are as follows: (1) There are some notable differences in the total resistance curves obtained from the differing resistance prediction methods. 2621). as illustrated in Part I of this study. Conclusions In this article. The re- gression models for resistance equations are determining fairly accurate values for the tested vessels. In the case of New York Water Taxi. SHIPFLOW and Sahoo et al. However. RT / against Fn∇ for various methods (Catalina Express. The total resistance data obtained from CATRES overpredicts the total resistance of the towing tank values by approximately the same margin as Schwetz and Sahoo (2002). The total resistance obtained from the method of Pham et al. although the curve underpredicts that of the towing tank throughout the speed range. This is thought to be due to a slightly more pronounced chine than what is present on the other two vessels.K. The overprediction could be due to overcompensating for the interference effects between the hulls or an inability to model the effect of following waves. and ultimately to validate a series of regression analysis equations previously developed and presented in Practical Evaluation of Resistance of High-Speed Catamaran Hull Forms—Part I. however.244 P. It is. The total resistance curve of Sahoo et al. where SHIPFLOW slightly overpredicts the total resistance in the lower speed range. Downloaded By: [Australia Maritime College] At: 00:22 10 September 2008 Figure 6. considering the age of the program and the theory it is based on. be remembered that the regression equations were developed on the basis of a systematic series of specific hull forms that are totally unrelated to the randomly selected hull forms used for comparative analysis. the majority of the resistance prediction methods fail to produce accurate results. the authors have attempted to validate the various methods against three randomly chosen vessels. this does not explain the extent to which the other regression method and SHIPFLOW underpredict the total resistance of this vessel. seems to maintain similar accuracies compared with towing tank results for different vessels. eventually underpredicting the total resistance above a volumetric Froude number of 2. obtained from the regression methods. (2004) underpredicts the total resistance throughout the same speed range as what SHIPFLOW overpredicted the total resistance. therefore. with little input data about the hull form and minimal time for the calculation process.8. It may. It has been shown through this study that the developed regression equations are able to give reasonably accurate predictions of resistance. performs extremely well. (2004) produce results with almost the same error in comparison to towing tank values. and a general form of the hull that is more suited to these two methods. (3) The curve of RT / . which are already in operation. (2001) is sufficiently accurate. Final remarks The purpose of this study is to provide a comparison of a variety of resistance calculation methods.

Sahoo PK. 67–74. Salas M. 55–67. Southampton. 245 Downloaded By: [Australia Maritime College] At: 00:22 10 September 2008 Pham XP. Sahoo PK. Hamburg. Vol. Wave resistance prediction of hard-chine catamarans through regression analysis. Australia for their support and encouragement throughout the course of this study. 2007. 2(4):307–324. p. 355–368. Numerical resistance prediction based on results of the VWS hard chine catamaran hull series ’89. Acknowledgements The authors express their sincere gratitude to The Australian Maritime College. Experimental and CFD study of wave resistance of high-speed round bilge catamaran hull forms. The regression models are to be used with due care with regard to the type of hull form (round bilge or chine) used in catamaran configurations. 1994. Kantimahanthi K. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST ’95). 2001. p. References Molland AF. Australia (specialist institute of University of Tasmania) and Incat Crowther Pty Ltd. Sahoo PK. Sydney. Browne NA. 2002. Sahoo PK. UK: University of Southampton. Zips JM. Salas M. Germany.Ships and Offshore Structures provide viable first estimates of the resistance characteristics of hull form in early design stages. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on High-Performance Marine Vehicles (HIPER’04). Practical evaluation of resistance of high-speed catamaran hull forms–part I. Proceedings of the 2nd International Euro Conference on High Performance Marine Vehicles (HIPER’01). Italy. Proceedings of the 3rd International Euro Conference on High Performance Marine Vehicles (HIPER’02). Schwetz A. Bergen. J Ships Offshore Struct. Luebeck. Wave resistance of semidisplacement high speed catamarans through CFD and regression analysis. . 382–394. p. Resistance experiments on a systematic series of high speed displacement catamaran forms: variation of length–displacement ratio and breadth–draft ratio. Schwetz A. Wellicome JF. 71. 1. 1995. Ship Science Report No. p. Rome. Norway. Couser PR. Germany. 2004.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.