THE TRANSACTIONS OF The Royal Institution of Naval Architects Vol 154 Part B2 2012 International Journal of Small Craft Technology‘Trans RINA, Vol 153, Part B2, Int J Small Craft Tech, Jul-Dec 2012 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON CONVENTIONAL AND UNCONVENTIONAL INTERCEPTORS. (DOI No: 10.3940/rinaijsct.2012.62.129) F De Luca and C Pensa, Universita degli Studi di Napoli "Federico 11" Italy SUMMARY ‘The experimental study focused on the variations of the efféctiveness of the interceptor induced by deadrise angle, longitudinal centre of gravity and interceptor geometry. More specifically three prismatic hulls with 10, 20 and 30-deg deadrise angles were tested, The Fy range studied is 1.3 to 2.8. Interceptors generate both high lift and trim reductions, In order to keep the influence exerted by the two effects on resistance reductions separate, tests with fixed trim and imposed sinkage with devices of various depths were carried out ‘The experimental data thus obtained resulted in an in-depth understanding of the functioning principle of interceptors. In particular, how to maximise resistance reductions by combining the position of the centre of gravity with the interceptors’ depth is explained. Finally, the study suggests two distinct unconventional interceptors that have led to significant results: resistance reduction and a widened range of speed where the work of the interceptors is particularly effective. NOMENCLATURE Ar Transom stem area Ay Area of midship section By Breadth on waterline (m) CG Centre of Gravity DIS Double Interceptors System S Referred to full scale (as subscript) M Referred to model scale (as subscript) Fn Volumetric Froude Number Split Interceptor distance from the bottom (mm) i Depth ofthe after interceptor (mm) L Vertical component of hydrodynamic pressure (elif) () Leo Centre of Gravity distance from transom (m) Lit Length on watertine (m) L, _ Forward interceptor distance from transom (m) Rn Reynolds Number Rt Total resistance of bare model (N) Rty Total resistance of model with interceptor (N) RT, Total resistance with interceptor (whose depth is »O) Rt Total resistance of bare model at best trim (N) Ry Viscous resistance (N) R, Resistance due (strictly) tothe interceptor (N) Hydrostatic residuary resistance (N) ST Spltinterceptor Ty Height of towing point from baseline (mm) TT ‘Towing point distance from transom (mm) U Velocity outside the boundary layer uu Local velocity in the boundary layer B _ Deadrise angle (deg) 8 Boundary layer height AG Rise of the Centre of Gravity (mm) AL Lift variation (% of model weight reduction) 2 Scale factor + Dynamic trim (deg) % Trim at rest(deg) (©2012: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects Distance from the wall Depth of the forward interceptor (mm) Displacement volume (m") ace 1, INTRODUCTION Interceptors are high li devices originally utilised on ‘wings in aeronautic and automotive fields (1]. In Naval Architecture they have always been considered as an alternative to wedges and stem flaps and there is considerable evidence in literature about their high effectiveness (2] [3]. The interceptor consists of a thin plate jutting out of the eraft with a depth generally ‘between 1.5 and 2.5 %e of the Ly, and i's located on the sternmost part of the bottom. Its role is to exert an overpressure able to lift the stem and consequently to change the trim. I's often used as a fixed device on craft sailing at 2 low relative speed [4] [5] (6] [7] and as a movable device on fast boats to improve manoeuvrability and sea-keeping qualities (8]. Moreover the interceptors have been fitted on sailing yachts with interesting results ol Although already quite widespread, there is no sound evidence in literature giving @ quantitative evaluation of the advantages of the use of interceptors, in terms of hull resistance. The work cartied out for this study conveys a great amount of experimental data based on the variation of speed, trim, centre of gravity position and deadrise angle, considering different dimensions and geometries of the device. ‘An in-depth analysis ofthe functioning principle explains the causes of the higher efficiency suggesting unconventional devices that have lead to significant reduction in resistance, B65Trans RINA, Vol 153, Part B2, Intl J Small Craft Tech, Jul-Dec 2012 2. THE FUNCTIONING PRINCIPLE 2.1 GENERAL PRINCIPLE The task of interceptors consists of inducing an overpressure on a bottom zone whose longitudinal extension is sufficient to ensure a twofold effect: @ significant lift increase and a trim reduction. Both these effects produce a resistance reduction over a wide range of speeds, whereas at very high speeds (typically for Fe > 2.5 to 3.0) the large trim reduction increases the wetted surface dramatically and, consequently, the resistance of the bare hull. It is important to observe that the large longitudinal extension of the overpressure zone puts the resultant of the overpressure forces significantly in a forward position compared to other trim conectors (flaps and stern wedges). In other words, with the same moment the interceptors work with shorter levers and greater forces (larger area and higher pressure). It follows that for the interceptors both the effects, lift increase and trim reduction, are relevant. 22 DOUBLE INTERCEPTORS SYSTEM To overcome the reductions in effectiveness due to the extreme trim corrections atthe high speed range, at first an unconventional device was tested. This is the Double Interceptors System (DIS) shown in figure 1. It consists of two interceptors - one in the usual stem position and the other one ata distance Ly from the transom. After Interceptor Forward latereeptor iy Figure 1: Double Interceptors System ‘The function of the forward device is to establish a new zone of overpressure in order to increase lift and to ‘counteract trim reduction due to the stern interceptor's action. Moreover the forward interceptor ereates a flow separation and a significant reduction of wetted surface. Dry one Forward interceptor After spray edge Wetted surface reduction observed on 620 ‘model fixed with Double Interceptors System B66 Figure 2 shows the reduction of wetted surface downstream of the forward interceptor observed on the 820 model, LIV" = 5,09 and Fao =2.48 Something similar to the lift increment and the trim cptimisation due to the action of the forward interceptor, is determined by the simultaneous actions of ster flaps and forward spray rails [10]. However it is to be noted ‘that the similarity with the DIS is stritly qualitative because the magnitude of the lift increment created by the interceptors is clearly higher. This higher magnitude is highlighted by the very small wetted surface whose extent, at planing speed, is necessarily in inverse proportion to the pressure lifting the hull, Referring 10 the reduction of the wetted surface, something similar is created by stepped hulls. In this ccase, the main difference is that on the stepped hulls, as ‘opposed to the DIS, the pressures on the forward zone are not increased [1 1] 2.3. SPLIT INTERCEPTORS Previous studies have highlighted the formation of closed vortex at the base of the interceptor 12] Figure 3 shows the position of the vortex and highlights the stream lines deflected by the stagnation zone, Closed vories and Deflection angle ese ge Stagnation zone Great dius of curvature Sal radius of curate Figure 3: S/ geometry and stream lines deflection In the same figure a second unconventional device, the Split interceptor (S), is shown, that consists ofthe usual Straight edge located in the traditional position but fixed ata distance h from the bottom. ‘The functioning principle of this device is based on two opposite effects ‘© 2 pressure reduction due to the ejection of water through the gap between the hull and the device; ‘© an increase of the pressure due to the reduction of the radius of curvature due to the vortex leaking in the comer (figure 3). ©2012: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects