Hydrodynamic Design of Planing Hulls By Daniel Savitsky" The elemental hydrodynamic charceteristes of prismtic plening surfaces ore ciscusted cond empirical planing equations ore given which describe the lif, drag, wetted oreo, center of pressure, end porpoising stability linits of plening surfaces os © furction of speed, trim angle, decdrise angle, ond leading. These results are combined to formu- lote simple computational procedures to predict the horsepower requirements, running draft, and porpoising sta cof prismatic planing hull. liustrative exemples are included to demonstrate the epplication of the computational procedures, Foxoawentar research on the hydrodynamics of planing surfaces has been actively pursued in both this ‘country and abroad for well over 40 yeare. The original, ‘impetus for this planing research was primarily motivated by the hydrodynamic design requirements of water~ based aircraft and to a somewhat lesser extent by the development of planing boats. In recent years, how- ever, the research emphasis has been on planing forms with application to planing boats and hydrofoil craft. * Aasocinte Professor, Head of Applied Mechanies Group, Davide on Laborstory, Stevens Institute af Tochnclogy, Hoboken, Presented at the January 1964 Mecting of the New York Metro~ pian isin of tn Soetev on NevatsAnentrnee aN MAREE * Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper. Some of the earliest experimental studies on pris- matie planing surfaces were made by Baker (1}* in 1910 Dut the first comprehensive experiments which received wide attention were those of Sottorf [2]. ‘These were followed by investigations of Shoemaker [3], Sambraus [4], Sedov [5], and Locke (6). The efforts of these researchers resulted in a large eecumulation of test data deseribing the hydrodynamic characteristies of constant deadrise prismatic planing surfaces operating at fixed trim, fixed mean wetted length, and constant speed. To make these dats suitable for practical use it was de- sirable to establish empirical equations which would ex- press the relations between the many planing variables and the hydrodynamic lift, drag, pitehing moment, and wetted area. Under sponsorship of the Office of Naval Nomenclature Cy = tener eonicint = Dyce 9 = seeleation due to wavity, J sisance, teimees 7 and 06 a sini sacl ntl To Fi of a= meio te each 7 poe eh Cig = lift coefficient, zero deadrise, = i = ‘oited Keel length a fa latad + = inclination of thrust line relative ogres ho epmuewecion val mydiedy: gw geet OE og Semieteee wee e T Cup = Wit toe, denne vues amie rece ih stud avaa vo AS ts a steamed te eet = aillenee mene, ete el 7 Aig debe oy amec dale sand chine lengths, ft = (Le — Cx, ~ dynamic component of lift coeffi- ‘Vi = mean ‘velocity over bottom of 1.) A mat lange cee fe 8h Ia = sliference betmeen Keel and chine = bij mgmt oft ete g = pC Seis ee re sts Cy = distance of conter of pressure eres) er, Ib Lm = rwean wetted length, ft = (Ly + “(hydrodynamic force) measured » = Kinematic viscosity of fluid, (1*/ ) Soap iee ever oan “er w= metho iht ot water pet s a dns of maton » © Re braces pray rn a ition = Vg rans tacompacedl Se ec ia ine cigs number, = Xb sean wetted lengiicbean ftio = herizontal hydrodynamic parallel to kel, deg trimangleef planing area, deg (anh) D = total @ Ay = mean ‘wetted length-beam ratio fon aren below ‘undh ‘red water surface pa pg gee eae Se ‘octoser, 1964 Dz ~ roiistance compszent sees 22 ETE te wee tetas! oa al oa RENE, soo ‘eect Bi due to Tongudizal distance oF center of rarity from. trarsce (eae Ered elong el) angle Veena the Ke and gray try, dag : Ay = total wetted spray area, sa ft VEG = atenoe of semtr of erevitychove Ter lines measured normal to keel n aprined from MARINE TECHNOLOGY, Vol. No.1, pp 71-95\ A Lever waren 3 SuRrace Fig. 1 Wave rise on a fat planing surface Research, US. Navy, the Davidson Laboratory of Stevens Institute of Technology, in 1947, undertook fa theoretical study and empirical-data analysis of the phenomenon of planing. This study prediuced 16 tech- nical reports (listed in the Appendix), which consider planing-surface lift, drag, weited area, pressure distribu tions, impact forees, wake shape, spray formation, ynane stability, and parallel planing surfaces. Where possible the ONR sponsored research utilized existing planing data and theoretical results but in many sreas additional experimental results and new theoretical analysis were provided by the Davidson Laboratory. In 1949, Korvin-Kroukovaky and Savitsky (7) pub- lished a summary report on the then completed studies of planing lift; drag, and wetted area and, in 1950, Murray (8] utilized these results in developing ¢ compu: tational procedure for predicting planing performance. In 1954, Sevitsky and Neidinger [9], continuing the ONR study, developed an extensive set of empirical planing equations whieh increased the range of applica- bility to parametric planing variables well beyond those developed in (7) ‘The purpose of the prosent paper is to utilize the re- sults of the studies of [9] to describe the elemental hydrodynamic characteristics of prismatic planing sur- faces and then to combine these results to formulate simple computational procedures to predict: the horse- power requirements and porpoising stability of pris- matic planing hulls. Some of the material of [9] is re- peated in this paper since (9} had a limited distribution and is currently out of print. Hydcodynamics of Prismatic Planing Surfaces A knowledge of the elemental hydrodynamic character- istics of simple planing suriaces is necessary prior to undertaking the design of specific geometric planing boats. In this section of the paper attention will be given to the development of equations for wetted area, lift, drag, center of pressure and stability limits of hard chine prismatic surfaces in terms of deadtise angle, trim angle, and forward speed. ‘The prismatic planing sur- face is assumed to have constant deadrise, constant ‘beam and @ constant running trim for the entire wetted planing area. Variations from these conditions will be discussed in the section on design procedure. Only hard-chine planing forms are considered in this paper sineo, at present there is a scarcity of basic planing data on round-bottom forms, n / PRESSURE O'STAIEUTION / LeveL warer SURFACE Lsespeay thexness stacwarion uwe-/ “SPRAY ROOT Fig. 2 Typical pressure distribution on far planing sustace ‘The planing coefficients and symbols used in the sub- sequent analysis are based on Proude’s law of similitude and are the same as those used in the analysis of water- based aircraft and hydroskis, Each symbol is specif- cally defined in the section on nomenclature. It. will be noted that the beam is the prime nondimensionalizing dimension rather than the length of the boat which is usually considered by tho naval architect. ‘The justification for this is that for planing hulls, the wetted length of the boat varies with trim, loading, and speed while the wetted beam is essentielly constant. More- ‘over, itis possible to change the overall length of a plan- ing boat without changing its hydrodynamic character- isties at high speed. Shope of Wetted Area of Planing Surfaces ‘A separate analysis is given of the shape of the wetted ‘avea for flat-bottom and deadrise planing surfaces, Wave Rise for Flot Ploning Surfaces In the case of planing surfaces with no deadrise (flat- bottom planing surfaces), water rises in front of the sur~ face, thereby causing the running wetted length 1 to be larger than the length defined by the undisturbed water level intersection with the bottom i, Fig. 1. Waguer [10] had made a mathematical study of the flow at the leading edge of @ planing surface of infinite length and found that the rising water surface, mentioned in the fore going, blends into a thin sheet of water fowing forward along the planing surface. This sheet is the source of spray in a planing surface and the region of its origin has ‘been designated by Wagner as the “spray-root” region. Fig. 2 shows the sprey root and the pressure distribu- tion resulting from it. ‘The term wetted area, as used in this paper, designates that portion of the wetted area over which water pressure is exerted and excludes the forward thrown spray sheet, ‘The wetted arca used in this senso is often designated in the literature as the “pressure area” and geometrically, includesall the wetted bottom area, aft of a line drawn normal to the planing bottom and tangent to the curve of the spray root. This line is elenrly discernible from underwater photographs. ‘Ag scon in Vig. 2, the stagnation pressure is developed MARINE TECHNOLOGY4 2 EB 4 SE 7 BOE / tte / BF a g 7 SE aE er “ a °F 7 ° < ba 160 2,-0.0 %% (0¢ 2,1) = a=, +030 tis 84) SF Loy z'F 2 etd i o H 2 3 4 WETTED LENGTH—BEAM RATIO BASED ON WAVE RISE, & Fig. 3. Wavewise variation for fat planing surfaces ‘at a short distance aft of the spray-root line. At very ‘small values of trim angle the stagnation line and spray- root line are nearly coincident, ‘As the trim angle in- ss farther aft of the spray- data from all available sourees are shown plotted in the form of \ versus As in "ig. 3. Here \ represents the running mean wetted Jength-beam ratio (1/b) and \; represents the calm-water Jength-beam ratio obtained from the relation & = d/b sinr, where d is the depth of the trailing edge of the OcroBER, 1964 planing surface below the level water surface during a planing run. Tt is seen, from Fig. 3, that, for the range of test parameters considered, the wave rise on a flat~ bottom planing surface is only a function of the running, wetted length. The mean curve fitted through the test data is defined by the following empirical equations: A= 1604-030" Se) and w Amd + 0.20 ‘The empirical wave. as 10, the dynamic lift is predominant and are the planing loads as predicted by (15) and are seen the lift coefficient is then independent of speed. In fact, to vary with C.. ‘The dotted curves are the buoyant for C, > 10.0 the fat-plate lift coefficient can be simply loads computed by (11). This hypothetical load is inde- ‘expressed as Ci, = 0.0120 ’r"* pendent of C,. The comparison between the planing To illustrate the loss in lift experienced by a planing load and calculated buoyant load is limited to C, > 0.60 surface at very low speeds (C, < 1.0), Fig. 12 presents since this is the range of applicability of (15). As C. 80 MARINE TECHNOLOGYhai a | }—15° oa Fl 20 as | at L oe 009 1 as 308 L B10 oor 006 x 005, 2s 004 4 003 j nz : LEE rtitits toe 608 ~~ bos B08 —o0 ce, Fig. 11. Life coeficient of a deadrise planing surface approaches zero, it is naturally expected that the ealeu- lated load should approgeh the buoyant load. It is interesting to note from Fig. 12 that in the range 0.60 < C, S 1.00, the motion of the planing surface reduces the Tit below the value which would be expected on a purely displacement basis. This effect is somewhat similar to the sinkage experienced by displacement vessels at low speeds, At C, = 1.0, the total planing load is approximately equal to the hypothetical buoyant load AUC, > 10 the positive dynamic reaction of the fuid on the planing bottem increases rapidly as the speed increases, OCTOBER, 1954 Litt of Deadrie Planing Surfoces For a given trim and mean wetted length-beam ratio, tho effect of increasing the deadise angle is to reduce the planing lift. This lift reduction is eaused primarily from a reduction in the stagnation pressure at the lead- ing edge of the wetted area. It will be recalled from the discussion of wetted areas that the angle between the stagnation line and Keel is given by the equation 7 ~ tan~' (fan 7/2 tan §). When 8 = 0 the stagnation line is normal to the keel and normal to the free-stream velocity so that full stagnation pressure 14pV? is de- veloped. For inereasing values of 8, the angle 7 de-Bou ve? sre —ToraL PLaning Loans 4/1/2296" 7" [0.0120 'c," + 0.0088 * 3 2 EQUIVALENT DISPLACEMENT LOAD=4/1/2 Pgb™=( \-0.30) TANT ow sco 200 a 030 060 1.20 creases so that full stagnation pressures are no longer developed; hence the planing lift is reduced. In effect then, the presence of deadrise causes the stagnation line to be “‘swept” aft and leads toa lift reduction not unlike that ona swept-back wing. To formulate an empirical equation for the planing lift of a deadrise surface, the lift coefficient of a Vee surface was compared with that of a flat plate at identical values of 7A, and C,. It was found in [7] and [9] that the lift of a deadvise susface can be represented by the fol- lowing equation Cy = 6; — 0.00658 0.464" (15) lift coefficient for a deadrise surface 8 = deadrise angle, deg 2 Cty lift coefficient of a lat plate operating at the same 7) hand Cas deadrisesurface For convenience in use, equation (16) is plotted in Fig. 11 Drag of Planing Surfaces ‘The total hydrodynamic drag of a planing surface is composed of pressure drag developed by pressures acting normal to the inclined bottom and viscous drag acting tangential to the bottom in both the pressure area and spray area. If there is side wetting then, of course, this additional component of viseous drag must be added to the hydrodynamic drag acting on the bottom of the plan- ing surface. For the present analysis, it will be assumed that there is no side wetting of the hull For a frictionless fluid, the tangential foree is zero. Henee for a trim angle +, Jord 3, and a force N normal MARINE TECHNOLOGY