DEVELOPMENT AND OPTIMIZATION OF MATHEMATICAL

MODEL OF HIGH SPEED PLANING DYNAMICS

Prin Kanyoo1, Dominic J. Taunton1, James I.R. Blake1
1. Fluid Structure Interactions Group, University of Southampton.

A nonlinear mathematical model capable of prediction load and motions of high speed planing craft in the
longitudinal plane has been developed. The development of the model is based on the mathematical model
presented by Zarnick (1978). Following the principle of 2D strip theory and wedge water entry problem, a high
speed planing hull is divided into a number of transverse sections. Sectional forces are evaluated, and then,
integrating along the ship length, total force and moment are obtained which leads to corresponding
instantaneous acceleration. By integration using a time marching scheme, velocity and displacement are
obtained. Solution of the motions of a planing craft based upon strip theory and wedge water impact is well
known and offers fast computational times useful for simulation and design. However it is necessary to
understand the balance between rapid computation and accuracy of this approach. Thus, the influence of the
controlling parameters, such as number of sections and time step, in the accuracy, stability and computational
times of the simulation in calm water and regular waves is investigated. The optimum model is finally validated
against the original model of Zarnick (1978) and the experiments of Fridsma (1969)
.

KEY WORDS
High Speed Planing Dynamics, Wedge Water Entry Problem,
Strip Theory, Dynamics Process.
INTRODUCTION
The primary difference between a planing craft and a
displacement ship is that the predominant force to support the
conventional or displacement craft is hydrostatic force or
buoyancy. While in the case of planing craft, the buoyancy
cedes this role to hydrodynamic lift force caused by flow and
pressure characteristics occurring when it is travelling at high
forward speed. However, the magnitude of hydrostatic force is
still significant that cannot be completely neglected. Due to the
high forward speed and trim angle, the flow around and under
the planing hull experiences change of momentum and leads to
the appearance of lift force according to the 2nd law of Newton.
In other words, there is a relative velocity between the craft hull
and the wave orbital motion that causes hydrodynamic pressure
generating hydrodynamic lift force act on the hull surface. Then,
in case of behaviors in waves, an additional contribution of ship
motions is necessary to be considered in the relative velocity,
resulting in nonlinear characteristic of its physical nature.
Generally, there are three principal methods of evaluating ship
motions: model experimental tests, 2D strip method (and 2.5D
method) and 3D CFD method. The model experiments appear to
be the most realistic and reliable. Nevertheless, they are the
most complicated in processing and analyzing the
measurements. The appearance of strip theory gave an excellent
alternative way of investigation in the field of ship motions. The
ordinary strip theory is widely used in evaluation of seakeeping
characteristics of conventional ships based on the linearized
boundary conditions of the flow around the ship hull. In the
similar way for high speed planing craft, the ordinary strip
method has been modified to 2.5D method accounting the
different flow phenomena. The most important difference is the
assumption of linear characteristics. Ship motions of planing
crafts appear to be strongly nonlinear. Consequently, the same
assumption of linearity would be valid only under the condition
of small disturbance motions. Thus, the equations of motions
had been modified but still based on the 2nd law of Newton.
Basically, 2.5D method is a kind of slender body theory
providing a simplification of 3D ship form to 2D cross sections.
The pioneer work of Zarnick (1978) is used as a basis for the
current work. Nevertheless, due to certain simplification of 2.5D
method, it does not account the fully real phenomena of the flow
around the ship hull. 3D CFD based on Navier – Stoke has been
developed thoroughly in the last decades. It is supposed to be
the most complete and reliable tool comparing to the other two
methods but it still presents an inconvenience in time
consumption and advance computational requirement. However,
The last method allows researchers to better study and simulate
the complexity of the flow around the planing hull, such as jet
flow and spray root with more accuracy.
Following the aims and objectives of the present project, the
modified 2D strip theory appears to be the most preferable
method for the early stage of design due to its convenience and
availability of use in simulation in conventional computer.
Zarnick (1978) developed a mathematical model capable of
predicting dynamic behaviors of planing boat in head seas. His
model is limited to the simulation of heave and pitch, but these
are the fundamental motions in operability consideration.
Keuning (1994) and Aker (1999) followed the work of Zarnick,
implementing and extending the original model in some aspects.
The results of response motions and accelerations were
validated against the experiments of Fridsma (1969) and showed
good agreements. Nevertheless, none of those researchers have
mentioned the verification process of the resulting time histories
convergence and above all, the recommendation of using
relevant parameters influenced in convergence of results when System of Equations of Motions
using their mathematical models. The system of equations of motions is derived from the 2nd Law
of Newton and by reducing to two degrees of freedom (heave
Thus, the “Hypothesis of Accuracy of Time Histories” is and pitch), it can be expressed in the following form: (See Fig.
introduced in order to verify the accuracy of the resulting time 21).
histories evaluated by the present mathematical model.
Basically, it consists in the fact that, in dynamic process, the M!!
zG = −(Fh + Fcfd )cosθ − Fb + Dsin θ + W (1)
accuracy of time history simulation (closest to the reality) of a
particular object is dependent of the accuracy of evaluation I θ!! = M + M + M − Dx
yy h cfd b D (2)
process in equations of motions. The most fundamental cause of
the process is the force acting on an object. Then the direct zG and θ!! are accelerations corresponding to heave and
Where !!
effect of the force is acceleration that will consequently cause
pitch motions. Fh , Fcfd , M h and M cfd are hydrodynamic and
velocity and motion (displacement) respectively. Following the
principle of 2D strip method, the hull is divided into number of cross flow drag forces and moments respectively. D is skin
strip sections. At each instant (stopped time), sectional force and friction or drag force. Fb and M b are hydrostatic or buoyancy
moments acting on each particular section are evaluated and by force and moment respectively and finally W is the weight of
integrating along the hull length, total force and moment and the craft.
accelerations are obtained. Then by integrating along time
marching, velocities and displacement are obtained respectively Following the strip method, the total hydromechanic and
for the present time step. Consequently, relevant controlling hydrostatic forces in the system of equations of motions will be
parameters of time histories of motions and accelerations derived into sectional forces in the following forms:
convergence appear to be Hull Resolution or Number of
Sections and Time Step Size when evaluating accelerations and
motions respectively.
Fh = ∫C tr hf dx ' (3)
L
The mathematical model will be developed based on Zarnick
(1978) model and be modified in order to be available for the Mh = ∫C f x 'dx '
tr h (4)
L
verification process. Analysis of influence of Number of
Sections and Time Step Size in convergence and accuracy of Fcfd = ∫C f dx '
tr cfd (5)
L
time histories of results are verified. The model will be
simulated and validated also based on the existing experimental M cfd = ∫C f x 'dx '
tr cfd (6)
data of the pioneer work of Fridsma (1969). L

Fb = ∫C tr bf dx ' (7)
GLOBAL SYSTEM OF EQUATIONS OF L

MOTIONS Mb = ∫C f x 'dx '

tr b (8)
The system of equations of motions is developed initially to be L

capable of simulating only in two degree of freedom in

longitudinal plane motions implying that the planing model is
towed with constant forward speed (no surge motion). The
system is developed from evaluation of sectional forces to total
force and moment.
Coordinate System
Classically, the coordinate system used in strip theory consists
in three components as can be seen in Fig. 20.
• Earth – Fixed Coordinate System: Oxyz
• Ship – Carried Coordinate System: Sxs ys zs
• Body – Fixed Coordinate System: Gx ' y' z'
In general, the Ship – Carried Coordinate System can be omitted
when simulating exclusively in longitudinal plane motions in
head seas with sufficient accuracy.
Due to flow separation phenomenon at the transom, a correction
factor called “Near Transom Correction Factor: Ctr ” presented
by Garme (2005) has been applied to the equations of motions
in all of hydrodynamic and hydrostatic force terms. The aim of
this additional factor is to correct the pressure distribution in
transom zone where the pressure reduces to atmospheric. This
factor is expressed as:
# 2.5 &
Ctr = tanh % ⋅ ( x '− x 'tr )( (9)
$ 0.34 ⋅ Bm ⋅ Cv '
In which Bm is full breadth at main section. Cv is breadth
Froude Number and x 'tr is body – fixed coordinate of the
transom.
Following the principle of Wagner (1931), sectional
hydrodynamic forces are determined according to the theory of
a wedge shape section penetrating into the water. The 2D
penetrating wedge is replaced by a flat lamina by the
assumption that the fluid accelerations are much larger than the

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
2
gravity. The flat lamina is expanding with the identical constant
rate at which the intersection width between the wedge and the With abf as sectional buoyancy coefficient. Its value is fixed at
water is increasing in the undisturbed water surface. 0.5 as the simulation will be always in towed condition with
high Froude Number.
By solving boundary values problems, the sectional
hydrodynamic force can be defined as “Rate of Change of Fluid Finally, the drag force or frictional resistance is determined by:
Momentum” and written in the following form:
1
D ∂ D = ρCF SwU 2 (19)
fh = ( maV ) = m! aV + maV! −U ( maV ) (10) 2
Dt ∂x ' The frictional resistance is strongly dependent on three fully
nonlinear parameters, U , Sw and CF . Wetted surface area is
With:
obtained by integrating sectional wetted curve along the ship
length. The frictional coefficient is approximated using ITTC
U = x!G cosθ − ( z!G − ww ) sin θ (11) 1957 correlation line.
V = x!G sin θ + ( z!G − ww ) cosθ − θ! x ' (12)
After evaluating the system of equations of motions by
V! = !! zG − w! w ) cosθ +
xG sin θ + (!!
(13) substituting the terms previously mentioned, it can be expressed
+θ! "# x!G cosθ − ( z!G − ww ) sin θ $% − θ!!x ' in the following matrix forms:

Where ma is sectional added mass, U and V are velocities M ⋅ !!

x = ∑F (20)
parallel and perpendicular to the keel respectively. V! is time
rate of change of V , ww and w! w are wave vertical orbital Thus:
velocity and acceleration respectively.
!!
x = M −1 ⋅ ∑ F (21)
The sectional added mass for a penetrating wedge can be
approximated by the high frequency solution: Where:

π 2 ! !!
z $
ma = Cm ρb (14) !!
2 x =# G & (22)
#" θ!! &%
And its time derivative:
As well as M and ∑F are matrices of mass and total forces
m! a = Cmπρ bb 2 (15)
minus terms associated to the motion accelerations.

Where Cm is sectional added mass coefficient, which is a
function of sectional geometry. Payne (1994) suggested the
dependency of deadrise angle of section added mass coefficient
as:
2
Cm = (1− β π )
The additional lift term due to the cross flow drag on the surface
of a wedge penetrating into the water is expressed as:
fcfd = CD,C cos βρ bV 2
Where CD,C is sectional cross flow drag coefficient with the
value of 1.33 following Keuning (1994).
Sectional buoyancy is expressed as:
fb = abf ρ gA
For the further reference in this paper, the system of equations
of motions is fully developed in the APPENDIX A with
coefficient assignments to be referred in the further sections.
VERIFICATION OF MATHEMATICAL
(16) MODEL
Once the mathematical model has been developed, it is
necessary to perform a verification and validation process, in
order to confirm the validity of the model itself. Verification
process provides evidence that the computational model is
solved correctly and accurately. While validation process
(17)
provides evidence that the model is accurately related to the
experimental measurements. The desired results of the present
project are time histories of the ship’s displacements, velocities
and accelerations. The system of equations of motions gives the
accelerations of the actual time step. This leads to the velocities
and displacements obtained by time marching integration
according to the dynamic principle. Generally, and equation of
(18) motions in dynamic appears to be Linear 2nd Order Non –
homogeneous ODE using time as principle variable. This kind

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
3
of ODE can be simply solved by analytical solutions or exact
solutions. Nevertheless, the present model is instead a fully none
linear one, the exact solutions are mostly impossible to deal
with. The only way to solve this kind of ODE is by numerical
analysis. However, the numerical analysis can give only
approximation of exact solutions with unavoidable errors.
The verification process has been performed in order to choose
appropriate numerical methods for differentiation and
integration in stopped time to find the actual force and
acceleration. The relevant parameter influenced in this step is
the resolution of the hull sections (number of sections). Once
obtaining the acceleration, the time is allowed to flow, and by
time marching integration, velocity and displacement are
obtained with time step size of integration as controlling
parameter. Both relevant parameters are verified and analyzed
by mean of convergence of time histories. This leads to the
optimization of performance for the present mathematical
model.
In summary, the aim of verification process is to find the
convergence of time histories evaluated by the model and
analyze the influence of those relevant parameters to find the
optimum values for the use of the model.
Three different models of different deadrise angles based on
Fridsma’s experiments are used in all of further simulations.
The main dimensions are of 1.15 m of length overall, 0.23 m of
beam and around 7 kg of weight. Three different deadrise angles
are of 10, 20 and 30 degrees. Table 1 represents the model
configurations.
Pressure Distribution Evaluation
Pressure distribution representation along the ship length is one
of novel contribution of the present project. This
implementation to the original Zarnick’s work (1978) allows the
pressure distribution to be represented by mathematical model
rather than experimental results. Once receiving the data of
accelerations, velocities and displacements at each instant as
input data, evaluation of sectional forces along the hull length is
carried out. In other words, it is the representation of particular
sectional force along the length.
As it can be seen in Fig. 1, the pressure distribution is accounted
only in locations where particular sections are under water level.
The integral evaluation along the hull length appears not to be
constantly evaluable considering the physical characteristic of
particular sectional flow. Following Martin (1976), Zarnick
(1978), and Aker (1999), the flow characteristic can be divided
into three zones:
• Zone A: Dry keel.
• Zone B: Wetted keel but dry chine.
• Zone C: Wetted chine
The largest magnitude of each component takes place in zone B
due to the strong rate of change of fluid momentum. In calm
Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
water case, the last term of sectional hydrodynamic force
expression (Eq. 10) plays a very important role as the other
terms are of small magnitude due to its steady state situation.
Moreover, by the influence of Ctr , all of the force components
die out to zero at the transom as the consequence of flow
separation.
Analysis of Convergence of Time Histories
Methods
Two methods of analysis are proposed, in order to study the
convergence of time histories. The first one is analysis of root
mean square error of time histories and the other is statistic
representation.
There is no availability of the real time histories of this kind of
simulation found in literature. The assumption is that when
increasing (or decreasing) those controlling parameters, time
histories of response motions should fit (converge) one to each
other.
Root Mean Square Errors Analysis
Root mean square errors of the pair of data between each actual
and the finest are evaluated. This mean could show the points of
corresponding value of the controlling parameters where the
time histories begin to converge, as their rmse should be as
small as possible. Firstly, the heave and pitch responses are
normalized by wave height and 2π H / λ respectively, while
CG and bow accelerations are normalized by the gravity. Then,
every particular time history corresponding to different number
of sections and time step sizes are compared to the best of the
finest data, in order to achieve the root mean square errors.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis is the essential process that provides the
justification of the reference values to use in root mean square
error calculations when evaluating error metrics. This analysis
consists in the study of statistic of normalized heave, pitch
motions, CG and bow accelerations. The normalized heave and
pitch are split into maxima and minima after being normalized
against their means. The mean here is defined as the half way
between the average maxima and minima. Mean, variance,
standard deviation and root mean square of maxima and minima
are calculated. While CG and bow accelerations are treated by
analyzing statistic mean of peaks, when the time histories are
stabilized. If a time history is close to sinusoidal, the maxima
and minima will form horizontal line and give small variance.
Otherwise, a large variance will occur. In summary, this statistic
analysis can quantitatively give the following implication:
• Similar mean and small standard deviation imply
regularity and fitting curves.
• Different mean and small standard deviation imply
regularity but non – fitting curves.
• Large standard deviation implies irregularity of curve.
• Small standard deviation implies regularity of curve.
4
 • Similar and different values of standard deviation
imply similar or different trend of regularity.
Nevertheless, only the statistic is not sufficiently capable of
predicting the fitting of time history, graphic representation or
error metrics is still needed in order to deduce adequately the
convergence of time history. Graphic explanation of both
methods is shown in Fig. 2.
Time Marching Numerical Method Verification
At each time step, the system of equations of motions receives
the actual displacements, velocities and time as input data.
Then, the forces and moments are evaluated and lead to the
actual accelerations. Until this point, the calculation is the
evaluation of equations that is a function of only body – fixed
coordinate. Once the accelerations of each time step is obtained,
the time histories of velocities and displacements can be
obtained by integrating the resulting accelerations along time
marching that is evaluation of time dependent functions. The
velocities and displacements of the next time step obtained
previously will be used in the system again as input data for the
next time step.
The simulations are set to perform using corresponding static
stability conditions as initial conditions. The planing models are
moving with constant forward speed or in towed condition. This
condition does not exist in reality due to the fact that when an
object is starting to move, a corresponding acceleration is
applied to bring the object to achieve that desired velocity. If the
object suddenly commences to move from repose condition to a
velocity, the extremely large acceleration is applied and brings
the problem to a kind of impulse condition. This causes an
extreme response motions but later restore to set itself to the
equilibrium. Once all parameters at the present time step are
obtained (stopped time process), in order to continue the
simulation to the next time step, the acceleration of the present
time step needs to be integrated to evaluate velocity and
displacement. The equation of motions is generally classified as
2nd order non – homogeneous ODE. This kind of equations can
be solved numerically by several methods. The choices of
numerical method such as Euler, Predictor – corrector and
several kind of Runge – Kutta methods are analyzed in order to
implement that used by Zarnick (1978) and deduce the optimal
one.
Comparison and Verification of Time Integration Methods
Verification process is performed in order to find the most
appropriate numerical integration method and as well as the
most appropriate time step size. The optimal ones should be that
of the least time consumption and accurately convergence. The
hull chosen to be simulated is 20 degree deadrise angle. It is
towed allowing to move in heave and pitch motions with
constant forward speed of V L = 6.0 . The simulations are
carried out by different numerical integration methods and five
different time step sizes, 0.01s, 0.02s 0.001s, 0.0005s and
0.0002s . As the exact analytical solution for this kind of
equations of motions does not exist, the criteria of convergence
Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
is supposed to be that, by decreasing time step size, time history
results should converge.
Influence of Time Step Size
Figs. 3 – 4 represent samples of time histories of normalized
response motions and impact accelerations of different time step
sizes and integration methods. The normalization consists of
dividing the response motions by the wave height. While in the
same manner, the accelerations are normalized by the gravity.
The simulations have been carried out for a planing model of 20
degree deadrise and V L = 6.0 . Actually, the verification is
focusing on the influence of time step sizes, the number of
sections is supposed to be appropriate enough to give the
accurate total force.
First of all, time histories of results from three different Runge –
Kutta methods and two predictor – corrector methods are
analyzed statistically and presented in Fig. 6. As it can be seen,
the standard deviation of heave maxima calculating by Runge –
Kutta family methods are small, although it is larger when using
time step size of 0.01s, the rest of time step sizes have similar
standard deviation and also the other statistics. While the
standard deviation of motions obtained by predictor – corrector
methods are significantly larger than the Runge – Kutta ones.
This could imply less stability when using predictor – corrector
method with larger time step size. The Runge – Kutta family
methods give the convergence when the time step size smaller
than 0.002s is used. In summary, when varying controlling
parameter, the results get closing to the values when using
highest resolution.
Then the time histories of results are compared by mean of root
mean square error analysis. The reference values for rmse are
deduced from statistical analysis to be those when using the
highest resolution of controlling parameters, as it can be seen
from a sample of heave maxima analysis in Fig. 6. The error
metrics of the normalized heave are represented in Fig. 5.
Once the optimum numerical integration is chosen to be Runge
– Kutta family method, computational times in simulation
varying both controlling parameters are shown in Table 2 using
personal computer (1.7GHz Intel Core i7, 8GB 1600MHz
DDR3 RAM). The data is represented in amount of times of the
least duration. The most influenced parameter in computational
time is the time step size. It can be seen that at a certain time
step size, the largest number of sections consumes less time than
the smallest number of section with the next smaller time step
size.
Limitations and Optimization of Mathematical
Model in Time Histories
In dynamics process, the accuracy of time history simulation
(closest to the reality) of an object is dependent of the accuracy
of process of evaluation of equations of motions. The most
fundamental cause of the process is the force acted on the
object. Then the direct effect of force is acceleration.
5
Hypothesis of Accuracy of Time Histories
Supposing that, when a mathematical model has been created to
simulate a physical phenomenon, an ideal condition can be
explained by corresponding mathematical expression and by
adding some environmental factors, the reality can be simulated
with accuracy. The first process of dynamic phenomenon is to
evaluate the total force acting on an object and consequently, the
acceleration caused by that force is found. The following
process is to evaluate the corresponding velocity and
displacement knowing the acceleration by integration along time
dimension. In all dynamic physical phenomenons, the force
acting on the object at each instant is state – space dependent.
This implies that if the velocity and displacement at each instant
are not adequately evaluated, the force and acceleration
corresponding to the next will be unreal. Similarly to the process
of evaluating force and acceleration, if they are not accurately
defined, the effect will be inaccurate velocity and displacement.
The time history resulting from an inaccurate mathematical
model will produce an inaccurate time history and will not
converge if the parameters of accuracy are not appropriately
applied. Due to the principal of strip theory, the parameter of
accuracy in the first appears to be the resolution of integration
along the ship length, in other words, number of 2D sections.
And similarly to the general dynamic phenomenon, the
parameter of accuracy of time marching integration is obviously
the time step size, which has been already analyzed in the
previous section. In the following section the influence of
number of sections will be analyzed.
The present mathematical model can be seen from the
perspective of dynamic as two main processes of calculation.
The first one is the evaluation of total forces acting on the hull,
which is dependent of number of sections parameter and gives
accelerations as effect. The second one is the time marching
integration, which has been explained in the previous section. A
case of moderate deadrise hull has been used to verify the
effectiveness of time marching integration. Nevertheless, though
the optimum time step size is known, it cannot guarantee the
accuracy of time history if the force is not evaluated accurately.
In other words, other uncorrected time history is created which
does not exist in reality.
It is found that, for the case of moderate to large deaderise hull,
the present mathematical model is able to predict accurately the
forces and moments with a low number of sections. While the
case of small deadrise hull, due to the fact of the sensitivity of
the force, the distribution of sectional force will be too crude.
Samples of variation of the total force in term of number of
sections in cases of moderate and low frequency waves are
compared in Fig. 7. The forces are normalized and then
analyzed by mean of error metrics. It can bee seen that by
increasing number of sections, the total force magnitudes
converge and consequently implies the accuracy. The total
forces and moments are strongly dependent of number of
sections in case of small deadrise angle boat operating in high
frequency waves and high amplitude, in other words, large wave
slope. The component that is most strongly dependent of
Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
number of sections is that associated to the derivation of added
mass distribution m! a and ∂ma ∂x ' except ma itself. Sectional
added mass ma forms a discontinuous function along the ship
length. It depends on the submergence that is zero when the hull
is fully out of the water and keeps being constant after the
chines are completely submerged. The different situations of
sectional added mass and the associated derivative terms in high
frequency seas are shown in Fig. 8. The ma , m! a and ∂ma ∂x '
are represented in term of integral coefficients CA , CE and CF
defined in APPENDIX A. In summary, total force acted on
model hull can be evaluated accurately using small number of
sections in case of moderate and large deadrises while the case
of small deadrise needs a finer number of sections o achieve
accurate results.
Influence of Number of Sections in Sectional Added Mass and
Its Associated Terms
It can be deduced from Fig. 8 that the term most strongly
dependent on the number of sections is that associated to m! a , in
other words, the term CE . The distribution of those terms along
the ship length evaluated for different number of sections are
shown in the Fig. 9. It can be seen that the distribution of m! a is
zero when ma is constant. This implies that the sudden change
of m! a from zero to a high value causes a sharply discontinuous
function. The function of the distribution is represented
numerically by a discrete function. The main cause of variation
of this function (varying number of sections) is that if the
discrete points corresponding to a certain number of sections do
not fit closely to the sharp points of the distribution, the discrete
representation will not be accurately defined. Consequently,
when being multiplied by the component of relative velocity
perpendicular to the keel V , the effect of magnitude of this
product is magnified. Due to the dependency of wave vertical
orbital velocity ww , in any instant that a particular section hits
the position corresponding to high ww , the order of magnitude
of CE will be extremely high comparing to the magnitude of the
term CF . Considering the principle of strip theory, each
particular section is considered as a wedge penetrating into calm
water with different local relative velocity to the water level. In
case of short wavelength and large wave amplitude (large wave
slope), if the number of sections is not sufficiently divided, the
distribution of any terms along the ship length will be
inaccurate. While in the case of small wave slope, this
occurrence does not happen due to the smoothness of relative
impact phenomenon. The comparison of distribution of CE
evaluated in different number of sections is shown in Fig. 8. It
can be seen that evaluating by small number of sections gives
significantly different distribution from that evaluated by large
number of sections.
6
Influence of Number of Sections and Time Step Sizes in Time
Histories
The analysis of influence of number of sections in stopped time
has been done previously. In order to prove the hypothesis of
accuracy of time histories, the full length of time histories of the
results will be explained in term of number of sections. The
planing hull models of constant 10, 20 and 30 degrees deadrise
angles are simulated by the present mathematical model in
regular waves varying wavelength between λ L = 1.0 and
λ L = 6.0 and wave amplitudes between H B = 0.11 and
H B = 0.33 in order to verify limitations and accuracy of the
model. The results of response motions and accelerations are
analyzed in the same manner used in time marching integration
analysis. Samples of statistical analysis and the comparison of
error metrics are shown in Figs. 10 – 12. Similarly to the
verification of time integration methods, the reference points for
root mean square error metrics are those when using highest
resolution controlling parameters. It can be deduced that for the
hull of 20 and 30 degrees deadrise, the response motions and
accelerations can be predicted with good accuracy using
whatever number of sections with time step size smaller than
0.002s in the whole range of wavelength and wave amplitudes.
Although some larger errors happen in the zone of natural
frequency, in which the rmse of the responses is significantly of
high order when using any number of sections with time step
size of 0.01s comparing to the other smaller time step. In other
words, number of sections has small influence in the
convergence when the time step size is smaller than 0.002s.
Nevertheless, considering computational time issue, using 0.01s
with large number of sections consumes less time but gives
similar accuracy. While in the case of 10 degrees deadrise angle,
in high frequency waves and large wave amplitudes, the
response motions are irregular with constant frequency (equal to
frequency of encounter) and do not fit one to each other when
varying number of sections. This implies the inaccuracy of
forces prediction and consequently, an in – identical time
history. Nevertheless, time histories when using larger number
of sections and smaller time step size are closer one to each
other and imply that the case of 10 degrees deadrise, higher
resolution in integration along the ship length and over time is
necessary in order to achieve accurately the total force acted on
the hull. It can be seen in Fig. 12 that the trend of convergence
of this case is similar to the cases of 20 and 30 degrees deadrises
except the need of using higher resolution in number of sections.
When the time step size is smaller than 0.002s, the time histories
convergence appears to be of better fitting although it is not of
the same quantity as in the cases of 20 and 30 degrees deadrises.
Due to the fact that when using large time step size, the peaks of
accelerations would not be detected, consequently, velocities
and motions would not be precisely integrated. Nevertheless, in
some circumstance this effect is of slight order, as the peak
acceleration duration is small, the motions can be also
considered as of slight fluctuation. Moreover, when simulating
in the zone of natural frequency, this case cannot be carried
using low – resolution integrations. With small number of
section, the total force evaluated appears to be of exaggerated
Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
order and with large time step; the acceleration lasts too long
and resulting inappropriate velocity and displacement.
VALIDATION
Following the experiments of Fridsma (1969) and the numerical
simulations of Zarnick (1978), once verifying and choosing the
optimum parameters influenced in numerical calculation, the
present mathematical model is used to simulate different cases
of performance of high speed planing boat in both calm water
and regular waves.
Calm Water Simulation
Planing hull models with three different configurations defined
in Table 1 are simulated. The results of performance in calm
water that are dynamic trim, dynamic sinkage and resistance are
represented in function of forward speed (speed to length ratio
V L ) in Figs. 13 – 15 comparing to those data calculated
using Savitsky’s Formulae (1964 and 1968) and Fridsma’s
experiments (1969). The range of these ratios is of high speed
( V L = 4.0 to V L = 6.0 ), as the present mathematical
model does not include wave resistance component that is
predominant part for the low speed range. In most cases, the
model is capable of predicting accurate results. The case of
small deadrise delivers sufficiently good real physical
phenomena, such as porpoising at high speed range.
Regular Waves Simulations
Simulations of heave and pitch motions and CG and bow
accelerations have been carried out for comparison with the
experimental results of Fridsma (1969). Fridsma tested a series
of constant deadrise models of various lengths in regular seas to
define effects of deadrise, trim, loading, speed, length to beam
ratio and wave proportions on the added resistance, heave and
pitch motions and accelerations at the bow and CG. The
configurations of the model are identical to that used by Zarnick
(1978) and is shown in the Table 1. Most of cases have been
carried out at V L = 4.0 and V L = 6.0 , however, no
comparison has been made at V L = 2.0 , as at this speed, the
model operates in the displacement mode for which the present
mathematical model is not valid, due to the lack of appropriate
component in the model.
Figs. 16 – 19 show comparisons of the results evaluated by the
present model, Zarnick’s model and the experimental results of
Fridsma. The response data are collected from stabilized time
histories taking mean values, as they are closely to be
sinusoidal. Heave responses are normalized by wave height H
and pitch responses are normalized by 2π H / λ . Accelerations
of response are collected from their peak values and normalized
by the gravity. The response data are represented as a function
of wavelength to ship length ratio λ L varying from 1.0 to 6.0.
The graphic representation of the resulting motions forms the so
called Response Amplitude Operator: RAO. This RAO
represents motions behavior in three different ranges in term of
frequencies of encounter (Journeé 2001):
7

• The low frequency area, with motions dominated by
restoring force associated terms. The model tends to
follow the wave as the frequency decrease (large
wavelength). The RAO tends to 1.0 and the phase lag
tends to 0.0.
• The natural frequency area, with motions dominated by
damping associated terms. A high resonance can be
expected in case of small damping component. A phase
shift of ±π could occur around the natural frequency.
• The high frequency area, with motions dominated by
mass associated terms. The waves are losing their
influence on the behavior of the hull.
It can be seen in cases of 20 and 30 degrees deadrise that the
computational results from the present model give very good
agreement comparing to Fridsma’s experiments and Zarnick’s
simulations. Except in natural frequency area, the present
mathematical model slightly over predicts the resonant motions.
This could be because of the assumption if only geometry
dependent of added mass coefficient Cm (Payne 1992), that in
reality it is also frequency dependent. This leads to further in –
depth investigation of Cm in term of frequency of encounter.
The case of 10 degrees deadrise gives good agreement in high
frequency area, although on the very high frequency
(wavelength equal to ship length) it experiences a jump over the
wave behavior (as well as occurred in Fridsma’s experiments).
This leads to unidentifiable frequency of encounter, as the
frequency of encounter of waves and frequency of response
motions are different. Moreover, in natural frequency and low
frequency area, the response motions form irregular signal but
identical frequency of encounter. The data treatment uses
statistic mean to represent signal wave height of the response
motions during the time histories when the motions are already
stabilized. The trend of RAO in this case is fairly good
comparing to the experiments but still of larger magnitude in
natural frequency area and it is subject to be analyzed in more
details on added mass influence.
Regarding the accelerations, the data treatment uses statistic
mean of acceleration peak when it is stabilized instead of
highest peak used by Zarnick. The results of case of 20 degree
deadrise and V L = 4.0 give very good agreement in both
trend and order of magnitude for all of frequency area. When
increasing forward speed to V L = 6.0 , the magnitude of both
CG’s and bow’s accelerations are slightly over predicted from
natural to low frequency area. As well as in case of 10 degrees
deadrise, the trend of both CG’s and bow’s accelerations are
similar to Fridsma’s experiments and Zarnick’s simulations. The
order of magnitude of bow’s acceleration is closer to the
reference while CG’s acceleration is larger in natural to low
frequency area. Finally, the case of 30 degrees deadrise gives
very good agreement of CG’s acceleration and slightly different
in order of magnitude but similar trend of bow’s acceleration.
Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
CONCLUSION
A mathematical model based on Zarnick’s model (1978), which
is combination of wedge water entry theory and strip theory has
been successfully implemented, developed and verified. The
verification process gives more in depth understanding of its
validity and convergence inside the model itself. The optimal
values of the relevant parameters have been verified in order to
achieve the accuracy of the model.
The planing hard chine hull forms of constant deadrise angle
used by Fridsma (1969) have been simulated for both
verification and validation processes. The cases of moderate and
large deadrise angles (20 and 30 degrees) can be simulated
accurately with the model using small number of sections and
large time step size and give accurately time histories.
Moreover, it is applicable for the most range of wave
frequencies and wave amplitudes. This implies short
computational times. Although using time step size smaller than
0.002s is preferable for better accuracy, the consideration of
whether it is worth or not multiplying computational times to
gain non – significant difference of accuracy needs to be
accounted for.
In case of small deadrise angle planing hull form, more
dedicated selection of relevant parameters is necessary to
account for the sensitivity of distribution of sectional added
mass and its derivatives. Above all, when it is travelling in the
waves with small frequency and large amplitude (large wave
slope). Increasing number of sections and decreasing time step
size is inevitable and leads to the consequence of longer
computational times. Nevertheless, once the time step size
applied is smaller that approximately 0.002 second, number of
sections disengages its influence in convergence of time
histories, due to the fact that the peak values of accelerations
can be achieved appropriately and leads to the accurate motions
for the next time step.
Finally the present model is validated against Savitsky’s
Formulae for running attitude in calm water and Fridsma’s
experiments and Zarnick’s simulations for performance in
regular seas. The attitude in calm water simulated by the present
model gives a good agreement to the references except at low
speed, due to the fact that there is no inclusion of wave
resistance component in the model, which is predominant
component in that speed range. The simulations in both regular
waves also give good agreement in all of the cases of deadrise
angles when using appropriate controlling parameters (number
of sections and time step size). Nevertheless, the present model
over predicts the response motions in the natural frequency area,
which is dominated by damping component.
The most significant implementation to the present
mathematical model is suggested to be the inclusion of relevant
terms, in order to collect the over prediction at natural frequency
zone. Moreover, it is of interest to extend the present model to
be capable of predicting planing hull motions in more degrees of
freedom that will be firstly in the transverse plane (roll motion).
8
 DTNSRDC – 78/032, David W. Taylor Naval Ship
REFERENCES Research and Development Center, Bethesda, Md.
Akers, R. H. Dynamic Analysis of Planing Hulls in the Vertical 20084, March 1978.
Plane. Technical Report, April 1999.
Blake, J. I. R. An Analysis of Planing Craft Dynamics in Calm
Water and in Waves. PhD Thesis, University of
Southampton, Southampton, March 2000.
Fridsma, G. A Systematic Study of the Rough – Water
Performance of Planing Boats (Part I: Regular
Waves). Technical Report R1275, Steven Institute of
Technology, Davidson Laboratory, Castle Point
Station, Hoboken, New Jersey 07030, November 1969.
Garme, K. Modeling of Planing Craft in Waves. PhD Thesis,
Royal Institute of Technology KTH, Department of
Aeronautical and Vehicle Engineering, Stockholm,
Sweden, September 2004.
Garme, K. Improved Time Domain Simulation of Planing Hulls
in Waves by Correction of the Near Transom Lift.
Volume 52, Pages 201 – 230. International Ship
Building Progress, 2005.
Von Karman, T. The Impact of Seaplane Floats during Landing.
Technical Report 321, National Advisory Committee
for Aeronautics, Washington DC, 1929.
Keuning, J. A. Nonlinear Behavior of Fast Monohulls in Head
Waves. PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology,
Ship Hydrodynamics Laboratory, September 1994.
Martin, M. Theoretical Prediction of Motions of High Speed
Planing Boats in Waves. Technical Report 76 – 0069,
David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and
Development Center, Bethesda, Md. 20084, April
1976.
Payne, P. R. The Vertical Impact of a Wedge on a Fluid. Ocean
Engineering, 8(4):421 – 436, 1981.
Payne, P. R. A Unification in the Added Mass Planing Theory.
Ocean Engineering, 19(1):39 – 55, 1992.
Payne, P. R. Recent Development in Added Mass Planing
Theory. Ocean Engineering, 21(3):257 – 309, 1994.
Rosén, A. and Garme, K. Pressure Investigation on a High
Speed Craft in Waves. Model Test Report, KTH,
Centre for Naval Architecture, Stockholm, Sweden,
2006.
Savitsky, D. Hydrodynamic Design of Planing Hulls. Marine
Technology, 1(1):71 – 95, 1964.
Savitsky, D. On the Seakeeping of Planing Monohulls. Marine
Technology, 5(2):164 – 174, April 1968.
Savitsky, D. and Brown P. W. Procedures for Hydrodynamic
Evaluation of Planing Hulls in Smooth and Rough
Water. Marine Technology, 13(4)381 – 400, October
1976.
Wagner, H. Landing of Seaplanes. Technical Report 662,
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,
Washington DC, 1931.
Wagner, H. The Phenomena of Impact and Planing on Water.
Technical Report 1366, National Advisory Committee
for Aeronautics, Washington DC, August 1932.
Zarnick, E. E. A Nonlinear Mathematical Model of Motions of a
Planing Boat in Regular Waves. Technical Report

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
9
APPENDIX A: FULLY DEVELOPED SYSTEM I yyθ!! = −(!!
xG sin θ ∫ Ctr ma x 'dx '
OF EQUATIONS OF MOTIONS AND TERMS L

ASSIGNMENT + x! G cosθθ! ∫ Ctr ma x 'dx '

L
Substituting Eqs.3 – 8 into Eqs.1 – 2 resulting in:
zG cosθ ∫ Ctr ma x 'dx '
+!!
L
# &
zG = − % ∫ Ctr fh dx ' + ∫ Ctr fcfd dx ' ( cosθ
M!! − z!G sin θθ! ∫ Ctr ma x 'dx '
$L L ' (A1) L

− ∫ Ctr fb dx ' + Dsin θ + W −cosθ ∫ Ctr ma w! w x 'dx '

L L

I yyθ!! = ∫ Ctr fh x 'dx ' + ∫ Ctr fcfd x 'dx ' +sin θθ! ∫ Ctr ma ww x 'dx '
L L
(A2) L

+ ∫ Ctr fb x 'dx ' − Dx D −θ!! ∫ Ctr ma x '2 dx '

L L
(A4)
+ ∫ Ctr m! aVx 'dx '
Then, the system can be elaborated into the following form: L

∂ma
M!! xG sin θ ∫ Ctr ma dx '
zG = −(!! − ∫ CtrUV x 'dx '
L ∂x '
L

+ x! G cosθθ! ∫ Ctr ma dx ' ∂ww

+cosθ ∫ CtrUma x 'dx '
L L ∂x '
zG cosθ ∫ Ctr ma dx '
+!! +θ! ∫ CtrUma x 'dx '
L L

− z!G sin θθ! ∫ Ctr ma dx ' + ∫ CtrCD,C cos βρ bV 2 x 'dx ')cosθ

L L

−cosθ ∫ Ctr ma w! w dx ' − ∫ abf ρ gAx 'dx '

L L

+sin θθ! ∫ Ctr ma ww dx ' −Dx D

L

−θ!! ∫ Ctr ma x 'dx ' The integral forms in Eqs. A3 – A4 will be assigned to the
L following coefficients:
+ ∫ Ctr m! aV dx ' (A3)
L CA = ∫C m tr a dx ' (A5)
∂m L
− ∫ CtrUV a dx '
L ∂x ' CB = ∫ C m w! tr a w dx ' (A6)
L
∂ww
+cosθ ∫ CtrUma dx '
L ∂x ' CC = ∫C m w tr a w dx ' (A7)
L
+θ! ∫ CtrUma dx '
L
CD = ∫ C m x 'dx '
tr a (A8)
L
2
+ ∫ CtrCD,C cos βρ bV dx ')cosθ
L
CE = ∫ C m! V dx '
tr a (A9)
L
− ∫ abf ρ gA dx ' ∂ma
L CF = ∫ C UV ∂x ' dx '
tr (A10)
L
+Dsin θ
∂ww
+W CG = ∫ C Um tr a
∂x '
dx ' (A11)
L

CH = ∫ C Um tr a dx ' (A12)
L

CK = ∫ C m w! tr a w x 'dx ' (A13)

L

CM = ∫C m w tr a w x 'dx ' (A14)

L

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
10
 2
CN = ∫ C m x' tr a dx ' (A15)
L

CO = ∫ C m! Vx 'dx '
tr a (A16)
L

∂ma
CP = ∫ C UV ∂x ' x 'dx '
tr (A17)
L

∂ww
CQ = ∫ C Um tr a
∂x '
x 'dx ' (A18)
L

CR = ∫ C Um x 'dx '
tr a (A19)
L

Substituting Eqs. A5 – A19 into Eqs. A3 – A4 resulting in the

following forms:

M!! xG sin θ ⋅ CA + x! G cosθθ! ⋅ CA + !!

zG = −(!! zG cosθ ⋅ CA
!
− z! sin θθ ⋅ C − cosθ ⋅ C + sin θθ ⋅ C!
G A B C

−θ!!⋅ CD + CE − CF + cosθ ⋅ CG + θ! ⋅ CH (A20)

2
+ ∫ CtrCD,C cos βρ bV dx ')cosθ
L

− ∫ abf ρ gA dx ' + Dsin θ + W

L

I yyθ!! = −(!!
xG sin θ ⋅ CD + x! G cosθθ! ⋅ CD + !!
zG cosθ ⋅ CD
!
− z! sin θθ ⋅ C − cosθ ⋅ C + sin θθ ⋅ C!
G D K M

−θ!!⋅ CN + CO − CP + cosθ ⋅ CQ + θ! ⋅ CR (A21)

2
+ ∫ CtrCD,C cos βρ bV x 'dx ')cosθ
L

− ∫ abf ρ gAx 'dx ' − Dx D

L

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
11
APPENDIX B: FIGURES

Pressure Distribution along the Ship Length

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

-0.05

-0.1
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

50
Total
Hydrodynamic
0 Cross Flow Drag
Buoyancy

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Ship Length

Figure 1: Pressure Distribution along the Ship Length.

RMSE  Analysis  and  Error   Statistical  

Metrics Analysis

Figure 2: Proposed Methods for Analysis of Convergence of Time Histories.

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
12
 Time Histories of Di,erent Methods with "t = 0:01s
-1.5 0.6
PCA
0.58
-1.55 PCE
Normalized Heave RK

Normalized Pitch
0.56 RKM
-1.6 RKF
0.54
-1.65
0.52

-1.7 0.5

0.48
-1.75
0.46
-1.8
0.44
-1.85
0.42

-1.9 0.4
99 99.1 99.2 99.3 99.4 99.5 99.6 99.7 99.8 99.9 100 99 99.1 99.2 99.3 99.4 99.5 99.6 99.7 99.8 99.9 100

Time Time

Normalized Bow Acceleration

Normalized CG Acceleration

0.5 1

0.5

-0.5
0
-1

-1.5

-2
-0.5
-2.5

-3

-3.5

-1 -4
99 99.1 99.2 99.3 99.4 99.5 99.6 99.7 99.8 99.9 100 99 99.1 99.2 99.3 99.4 99.5 99.6 99.7 99.8 99.9 100

Time Time

Figure 3: Time Histories of Accelerations and Motions using Different Methods of Integration with Constant Time Step Sizes.

Time Histories of PCA Method with Di,erent "t

-1.5 0.6
0.01s
0.58
-1.55 0.002s
Normalized Heave

0.001s
Normalized Pitch

0.56 0.0005s
-1.6 0.0002s
0.54
-1.65
0.52

-1.7 0.5

0.48
-1.75
0.46
-1.8
0.44
-1.85
0.42

-1.9 0.4
99 99.1 99.2 99.3 99.4 99.5 99.6 99.7 99.8 99.9 100 99 99.1 99.2 99.3 99.4 99.5 99.6 99.7 99.8 99.9 100

Time Time
Normalized Bow Acceleration
Normalized CG Acceleration

0.5 1

0.5

-0.5
0
-1

-1.5

-2
-0.5
-2.5

-3

-3.5

-1 -4
99 99.1 99.2 99.3 99.4 99.5 99.6 99.7 99.8 99.9 100 99 99.1 99.2 99.3 99.4 99.5 99.6 99.7 99.8 99.9 100

Time Time

Figure 4: Time Histories of Accelerations and Motions using PCA Integration Method with Different Time Step Sizes.

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
13
 Error Metrics of Normalized zG
0.07
PCA
PCE
RK
0.06 RKF
RKM

0.05
RMSE

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0.01 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0

"t
Figure 5: Error Metrics of Normalized Heave Motion Comparing Different Integration Methods.

Statistic Representation of Heave Maxima

0.145
PCA
PCE
RK
RKM
RKF
0.14
mean + std of zGmax

0.135

0.13

0.125

0.12
0.01 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0

"t
Figure 6: Statistic Representation of Heave Maxima Comparing Different Integration Methods.

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
14
 6=L = 4:00 H=B = 0:111 #10 -3
6=L = 6:00 H=B = 0:111
0.04 4
10deg 10deg
20deg 20deg
0.02 30deg 2 30deg

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
RMSE of Fh =1=2;SV 2

RMSE of Fh =1=2;SV 2
lambda=L = 4:00 H=B = 0:222 #10 -3
6=L = 6:00 H=B = 0:222
0.03 4
10deg 10deg
0.02 20deg 20deg
30deg 2 30deg
0.01

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000

#10 -3
6=L = 4:00 H=B = 0:333 #10 -3
6=L = 6:00 H=B = 0:333
20 10
10deg 10deg
20deg 20deg
10 30deg 5 30deg

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Number of sections Number of sections
Figure 7: Root Mean Square Error of Normalized Total Hydrodynamic Force of Three Different Deadrises Varying Number of
Sections.

6=L = 4:00 H=B = 0:111 #10 -3

6=L = 6:00 H=B = 0:111
20 10
10deg 10deg
20deg 20deg
10 30deg 5 30deg

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
RMSE of CE =1=2;SV 2

RMSE of CF =1=2;SV 2

lambda=L = 4:00 H=B = 0:222 6=L = 6:00 H=B = 0:222

0.6 0.03
10deg 10deg
0.4 20deg 0.02 20deg
30deg 30deg
0.2 0.01

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000

6=L = 4:00 H=B = 0:333 6=L = 6:00 H=B = 0:333

0.3 0.1
10deg 10deg
0.2 20deg 0.05 20deg
30deg 30deg
0.1 0

0 -0.05
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Number of sections Number of sections

Figure 8: Root Mean Square Error of Normalized CE and CF Coefficients of Three Different Deadrises Varying Number of Sections.

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
15
 Variation of Sectional Added Mass and Associated Terms
25
80sect.
20
240sect.
400sect.
15
ma

560sect.
10

0
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

4
#10
1

0.5
_a

0
m

-0.5

-1
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

500
@ma
@x

-500
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

10000
_ a"V

5000
m

-5000
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

3000
@ma
@x

2000

1000
U "V "

-1000

-2000
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Ship Length

Figure 9: Variation of Section Added Mass and Its Associated Terms Comparing Different Number of Sections along the Ship Length.

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
16
 #10 -3
- = 20o ,6=L = 4:0,H=B = 0:1
6
40sect.
5 80sect.
120sect.
160sect.

RM SEzG
4 200sect.

0
0.01 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0

"t
-3
#10
6
0.01s
5 0.002s
0.001s
0.0005s
RM SEzG

4 0.0002s

0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Number of Sections

Figure 10(a): Error Metrics of Time Histories of Heave Motion of Planing Hull Model β = 20 o , λ L = 4.0, H B = 0.1

- = 20o ,6=L = 4:0,H=B = 0:3

0.02
40sect.
80sect.
120sect.
0.015
160sect.
RM SEzG

200sect.

0.01

0.005

0
0.01 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0

"t
0.02
0.01s
0.002s
0.001s
0.015
0.0005s
RM SEzG

0.0002s

0.01

0.005

0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Number of Sections

Figure 10(b): Error Metrics of Time Histories of Heave Motion of Planing Hull Model β = 20 o , λ L = 4.0, H B = 0.3

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
17
 #10 -3
- = 30o ,6=L = 4:0,H=B = 0:1
1.4
40sect.
1.2 80sect.
120sect.
1 160sect.
RM SEzG 200sect.
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0.01 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0

"t
-3
#10
1.4
0.01s
1.2 0.002s
0.001s
1 0.0005s
RM SEzG

0.0002s
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Number of Sections

Figure 11(a): Error Metrics of Time Histories of Heave Motion of Planing Hull Model β = 30 o , λ L = 4.0, H B = 0.1 .

#10 -3
- = 30o ,6=L = 4:0,H=B = 0:3
5
40sect.
80sect.
4 120sect.
160sect.
RM SEzG

200sect.
3

0
0.01 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0

"t
#10 -3
5
0.01s
0.002s
4 0.001s
0.0005s
RM SEzG

0.0002s
3

0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Number of Sections

Figure 11(b): Error Metrics of Time Histories of Heave Motion of Planing Hull Model β = 30 o , λ L = 4.0, H B = 0.3 .

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
18
 - = 10o ,6=L = 4:0,H=B = 0:1
0.25
40sect.
80sect.
0.2 120sect.
160sect.
RM SEzG 200sect.
0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0.01 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0

"t
0.25
0.01s
0.002s
0.2 0.001s
0.0005s
RM SEzG

0.0002s
0.15

0.1

0.05

0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Number of Sections

Figure 12(a): Error Metrics of Time Histories of Heave Motion of Planing Hull Model β = 10 o , λ L = 4.0, H B = 0.1 .

#10 -3
- = 10o ,6=L = 4:0,H=B = 0:3
5
40sect.
80sect.
4 120sect.
160sect.
RM SEzG

200sect.
3

0
2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

"t #10 -3

#10 -3
5
0.002s
0.001s
4 0.0005s
0.0002s
RM SEzG

0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Number of Sections

Figure 12(a): Error Metrics of Time Histories of Heave Motion of Planing Hull Model β = 10 o , λ L = 4.0, H B = 0.3 .

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
19
 - = 20o
0.2
Present
0.15
zG =H 0.1
Savitsky
Fridsma

0.05

0
4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6

8
3 (deg)

0
4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6

0.2
RT =4

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8
p
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6

V= L
Figure 13: Performances in Calm Water of Planing Hull Model β = 20 o .

- = 10o
0.3
Present
zG =H

0.2 Savitsky
Fridsma

0.1

0
4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6

8
3 (deg)

6
4
2
0
4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6

0.2
RT =4

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8
p
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6

V= L
Figure 14: Performances in Calm Water of Planing Hull Model β = 10 o .

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
20
 - = 30o
Present
0.1
zG =H Savitsky
Fridsma
0.05

0
4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6

8
3 (deg)

0
4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6

0.3
RT =4

0.2

0.1

0
4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8
p
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6

V= L
Figure 15: Performances in Calm Water of Planing Hull Model β = 30 o .

Heave RAO Pitch RAO

1.4 1.4
Present
1.2 Fridsma 1.2
Zarnick
1 1
3=2:H=6
zG =H

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6=L 6=L
CG Acceleration Bow Acceleration
0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3
zBG =g

Bb=g

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6=L 6=L

Figure 16: Response Motions and Accelerations of Planing Hull Model β = 20 o ,V L = 4.0, H B = 0.1 .

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
21
 Heave RAO Pitch RAO
2 3
Present
Fridsma 2.5
1.5 Zarnick

3=2:H=6
zG =H 2

1 1.5

1
0.5
0.5

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6=L 6=L
CG Acceleration Bow Acceleration
1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
zBG =g

Bb=g
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6=L 6=L

Figure 17: Response Motions and Accelerations of Planing Hull Model β = 20 o ,V L = 6.0, H B = 0.1 .

Heave RAO Pitch RAO

2.5 5
Present
Fridsma
2 Zarnick 4
3=2:H=6
zG =H

1.5 3

1 2

0.5 1

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6=L 6=L
CG Acceleration Bow Acceleration
5 5

4 4

3 3
zBG =g

Bb=g

2 2

1 1

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6=L 6=L

Figure 18: Response Motions and Accelerations of Planing Hull Model β = 10 o ,V L = 6.0, H B = 0.1 .

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
22
 Heave RAO Pitch RAO
2 2.5
Present
Fridsma
Zarnick
2
1.5

3=2:H=6
zG =H
1.5
1
1

0.5
0.5

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6=L 6=L
CG Acceleration Bow Acceleration
0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3
zBG =g

Bb=g
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6=L 6=L

Figure 19: Response Motions and Accelerations of Planing Hull Model β = 30 o ,V L = 6.0, H B = 0.1 .

Figure 20: Coordinate Systems.

Figure 21: Free Body Diagram of Forces, Velocities and Accelerations.

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
23
APPENDIX C: TABLES
Table 1: Planing Hull Model Configurations.

CONFIGURATIONS
3
∇ = 0.0074m , LOA = 1.15m,VCG = 0.06m, B = 0.23m
Model V L Deadrise (Deg) LCG (m from transom) Radius of Gyration (m)
A 4.0 20 0.44 0.29235
B 6.0 20 0.44 0.29235
J 6.0 10 0.37 0.3013
M 6.0 30 0.45 0.2852

Table 2: Time Consumption in Calculation Varying Relevant Parameters.

Sections\ Δt (s) 0.01 0.002 0.001 0.0005 0.0002

40 Ts 4.86Ts 9.65Ts 19.54Ts 50.25Ts
80 1.09Ts 5.40Ts 10.49Ts 21.10Ts 54.65Ts
120 1.17Ts 5.76Ts 11.30Ts 22.80Ts 59.75Ts
160 1.26Ts 6.17Ts 12.28Ts 25.12Ts 62.17Ts
200 1.35Ts 6.62Ts 13.18Ts 27.49Ts 66.83Ts

Kanyoo Development and Optimization of Mathematical Model of High Speed Planing Dynamics
24