L--'.- .
b
-.
RESISTANCE CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE TREHANTIRI TYPE BOAT
G. Ganos, T. Loukakis (Greece)
0. ABSTRACT
Three trehantiri type boat models, which form
a mini-series with L/B2.5, 3.0 and 3.6, were built
and tested for resistance at various displacements
and trim values. The speed range was extended to
over O.45Fn. The results are presented in a form
convenient for interpolation. Regression analysis
predictions of the resistance are compared to the
experimental results.
1. INTRODUCTION
The trehantiri type is the most frequenty
used fishing boat in the Greek seas. The same hull-
form is also widely used as a pleasure boat and to
transport passengers or cargo for short distances.
The length of the vessels varies between 5 and
20 meters and in general there is a tendency to
excessively overpower them.
To contribute to the proper design of these
boats a research program has been initiated at
the Naval Architecture Laboratory of the National
Technical University of Athens with main goals:
to create a computerized procedure for the
generation of the hull lines
to create a systematic resistance series
to establish experimentally the values of
the propeller-hull interaction parameters
to examine the agreement between theoretical
predictions and experimental data for the sea-
keeping behaviour of these especially sea-
worthy vessels.
In this paper the resistance characteristics
of an initial systecatic mini-series are presented.
The main particulars of the central model of
the three del series were selected after exa'lin-
TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT
Laboadum voor
Sthmm
Mskslw,g 2, B cD DeUt
L O15w1a6w.F 015.711030
ing a sample of 94 such boats, for twelve of which
the lines plan was available mainly from reference
I:1)
The sample distribution of the waterline length
L, the L/B vs L and the B/I vs L distributions are
shown in figs 1. 2 and 3.
The central model, No.2, is considered to re-
present a typical 12 meter fishing boat with L/B'3
and BIT=3.6. The other two models, No.1 and No.3,
were designed to have the same bndy plan but with
L/B'2.5 and 3.6 respectively. This decision was
based on the expectation that L/B is the main pa-
rameter affecting the resistance of the boats when
operatino at high values of Fn.
The waterlines and the body plan of model no 2
are shown in fig.4. The waterline length of the
wooden models was 1.67m, 2m and 2.4m for models no
1, 2 and 3 respectively. All models were fitted with
a 33cm wooden keel.
2. MODEL TESTS
The trehantiri boats, like most small vessels,
do not operate continuously at a specicic waterline.
Thus, each model was tested at four different displa-
cements, corresponding to four different BIT values,
and three different trim values at each displacement.
The huilform of the boats is such that each of the
above 36 cases can be thought to represent a dif-
ferent model. The geometrical particulars of the 36
aforementioned cases are shown in Table 1. Each case
is designated by a three digit code. The first digit
represents the model number, the second the test
displacement (or BIT) and the third the trim value
(1 for even keel , 2 for 1.5° trim by the stern and 3
for 30 trim by stern).
The experiments were conducted at the owin
 640

for 1/B values above 3.1. Antoniou uses a selected With regard no to the resistance merits of the
part of F.A.O.'s sample plus huilforms correspond- trehantiri boats when compared to F.A.O.'s sarnple[3J.
ing better to the trehantiri and other Greek type figures 20 and 21 demonstrate that this type of
boats. huliform is on the average inferior, especially at
higher speeds.
In figs. 17. 38 and 19 the predicted EHP vs
ship speed curves for L=12m, using F.A.0. and Note: The term 'tOoXovtilpLa", to characterize a
Antoniou's methods, are compared to experimental medieval type of fast boats, was first used by the
results. It is obvious that F.A.0. gives rea- Byzantine chronicler Nikitas around 865 A.D., ac-
sonable results only for the model with L/B3.6. cording to the modern Greek historian K.Paparigopoulos.
for which it moderately overpredicts. On the
contrary, Antoniou's method in general under- AknowledgmentThe construction of model No 2 was
predicts, but its results are reasonable and clo-
funded by the Alexander S. Onassis Benefit Foundation
ser to the experimental values, in particular for
the higher ship speeds, i.e. Fn>0.3. In Table 3
REFERENCES
the percentage error of Antoniou's method is
shown for all cases and En values in the form: Antoniou, A. 'On the design characteristics of
Greek type vessels', Ph.D. Thesis,N.T.IJ.A.,1969
(EHP
test -EHP regresSOfl )IEHPtest xIOO
. Hayes,J.G. and Engrall,L.0."Computer-aided studies
of fishing boat hull resistance", F.A.0.,Rome
In the same table the r.m.s. error value for each
1969
Fn is shown. Doust,D.J., Hayes,J.G.and Tsuchiya, T.'A Statis-
Table 3.
tical Analysis of F.A.0. Resistance Data for
F 0.225: 0.230 0.215: 6.3001 0.323 0.350 0.315 Fishing Craft', Fishing Boats of the World:3,
III 50.4 30.0 38.0 20.6 8.7 3.9 -17.7 London 1967
112 48.3 1 30.9 30.8 : 74.5 115.5 6.5 -9.5
103 40.7 : 23.6 33.4 : 23.s : 15.5 9.1 -1.5
121 37.0 07.8 22.7 3.2 0.21 -0.9 -25.4
122 39.6 121.0 20.5 11.6 : 2.6 1.8 -14.6 NOMENCLATURE
123 41.2 : 21.7 20.2 13.0 : 9.1 7.8 -8.4
331 71.5 [2.3 10.1 . 2.4 1 -5.8 -4.4 -79.0
132 79.5 14.7 22.9 10.9 1.81 3.0 -21.0
B = maximum beam measured at the floating
133 35.4 18.4 23.5 :14.1 : 8.7 5.7 -15.3
141 22.5 9.0 16.8 1 -2.9 1-11.9 -8.0 -3.4.7 waterl me
142 27.! 12.3 18.1 5.2 1 -1.6 1.3 -13.1
( 2m
= Froude's 'Circle'resistance coefficient
143 32.4 13.4 21.7 9.8 4.8 1 9.1 -9.7 for 12m boat
211 43.0 33.3 36.: 21.7 120.9 70.5 13.4
217 43.4 20.! 35.6 26.2 1 23.7 10.5 26.4 EHP effective horsepower
213 42.6 27.8 29.6 24.6 72.7 18.8 19.7
221 37.0 24.0 27.2 -60.4 1.5 03.0 8.8 Froude number
35.7 22.9 26.7 13.9 11.6 Fn
222 13.3 7.1
223 37.0 21.7 25.8 05.3 10.3 8.7 11.5
23! 27.! 08.1 21.4 2.2 -1.0 8.7 0.5 L length on the floating waterline
232 25.5 17.8 21.3 7.7 6.? 10.0 2.2
233 31.1 19.3 233 31.8 0.7 7.8 5.! 1/3
241 17.0 10.8 14.0 -2.4 -5.1 3.9 -2.8 '4 L/V ratio
242 26.3 12.4 17.1 4.3 3.9 5.3 0.5
243 73.9 15.2 10.8 7.8 5.5 6.8 (i.6 = total ship calmwater resistance
311 33.9 30.8 30.4 71.0 10.0 IL! 25.3
312 32.6 29.1 78.2 21.2 70.6 11.0 36.3
313 33.2 77.0 20.7 17.7 10.5 13.2 41.1' T = dratt at 1/2L excluding wooden keel
32! 22.4 76.2 19.9 7.4 8.9 10.5 14.5
327 25.8 21.5 19.7 8.6 7.0 7.6 15.8
323 26.7 17.9 15.3 7.2 6.9 5.5 23.7 V ship speed
331 16.3 17.6 10.2 3.4 3.8 8.0 10.3
332 21.2 16.5 15.2 2.0 2.1 5.3 10.2 V ship volume of displacement
333 75.7 15.1 15.? 2.6 3.8 3.5 15.5
341 10.6 16.5 17.7 0.4 -0.3 7.6 6.9
342 71.6 12.5 14.8 -2.7 -2.6 4.0 5.0 g acceleration of gravity
343 20.0 12.0 14.0 -0.2 -0.4 0.2 6.6
as 32.5 21.0 24.3 ia.a 36.6 5.7 . 17.4 p = seawater density
S = wetted surface
For definition of symbols CR1. 16' vi,'t,
However, it should be noted that the highest c, c , LCB, 1/2o , 1/2o , 3/2o.., as used for fishing
in p R ee

ship speed for which predictions are possible is boats, see reference [2]
O.357Fn for F.A.O. and O.375Fn for Antoniou.That
is lower than the usually obtained speeds of the Theodore A. Loukakis, Professor
trehantiri boats, when equiped with their bigger George C. Ganos, Assistant
than necessary engines. Dept.of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering
The regression analysis equation of Artoniou National Technical University of Athens,
together with the values of the coefficients are 42, 28is Octovriou, Athens, Greece
given iii the Appendix.

-c..?-- -w! - -r.r rcr---.-.

 641

Table 1. Geometrical characteristics of the 36 tested cases

Case1 L 118 B/T C. Cp Lcb 1 I /2a, 112a,, 1 /2a' Tn. SI 92 '3

Ill 1.588 2.67 4.59
4.54
0.722 0.625
0.620
37.7
-.29 33.4
22.5
24.7
52.3
53.7
0.0 6.09
6.21
4.29
4.19
112 1.585 2.66 0.72 1
113 1.581 2.66 4.50 0.729 0.600 -2.12 31.0 27.1 55.2 0 6.22 4.18
121 1.612 2.60 4.16 0.728 0.616 1.60 39.1 24.4 51.8 0.0 5.79 3.97
122 1.610 2.60 L12 0.728 0.612 0.07 37.9 26.8 2.5 5.81 3.96
123 1.607 2.59 4.09 0.734 0.605 -1.58 33.6 52.5 54.6 3.0 5.91 3.96
131 1.637 2.55 3.84 0.732 0.618 I .62 40.2 26.4 51.3 0.0 5.56 3.80
132 1.630 7.55 3.82 0.755 0.615 0.15 39.1 29.0 52. B 2.5 5.59 3.80
233 2.629 2.54 3.78 0.737 0.608 -1.34 35.5 34.0 3.0 5.59 3.79
141 2.650 2.51 3.58 0.738 0.620 1.60 41.2 28.4 50.9 0.0 5.39 3.66
142 1.650 2.51 3.56 0.739 0.617 0.23 40.2 33.6 52.5 1.5 5.40 3.66
143 1.649 2.51 3.54 0.743 0.621 -1.20 39.0 35.6 54.0 3.0 5.41 '.66
211 1.905 3.20 4.58 0.722 0.615 1.55 32.7 19.0 47.1 0.0 6.47 4.73
212 1.902 3.20 4-54 0.72! 0610 -.29 28.8 21.0 48.6 6.49 4.73
213 1.897 3.19 4.50 0.729 0.600 26.6 23.1 50. 1 0 6.50 4.72
221 1.934 3.12 4.26 0.728 0.616 2.60 34.1 20.7 46.6 0.0 6.25 4.49
222 1.932 3.12 4.22 0.728 0.622 0.07 33.0 22.9 49.0 1.5 6.17 4.48
223 1.928 3.12 4.09 0.734 0.605 -1.58 28.9 28.0 49.6 3.0 6.17 4.47
231 1.958 3.06 3.84 0.73 1 0.618 1.62 35.2 22.4 46.2 0.0 5.91 4.50
732 1.956 3.06 3.82 0.735 0.625 0.13 34.1 24.0 47.7 5.94 4.29
233 2.954 3.05 3.78 0. 737 0.608 -1.34 30.8 29.3 49.3 0 5.94 4.29
241 1.980 3.01 3-59 0.738 0.620 1.60 36.1 24.2 45.0 0.0 5.72 4.14
242 1.980 3.02 356 0.739 0.617 0.23 35.2 28.9 47.3
40.9
5.74 4.13
243 1.978 3.0! 3.54 0.743 0.612 1.10 34.1 30.8 0 5.75 4.13
311 2.286 3.84 4.58 0.722 0.615 28.2 16.1 41.9 0.0 6.88 5.54
312 2.287 3.84 4.54 0.721 0.6 10 -.29 24.6 17.7 43.4 1.5 6.90 5.34
313 7.276 3.83 4.50 0.729 0.600 -2.12 22.7 19.6 44.9 3.0 6.9! 5.33
321 2.322 3.74 4.16 0.728 0.616 1.60 29.4 17.5 41.4 0.0 6.54 5.07
322 2.318 3.74 4.22 0.728 0.622 0.07 28.4 19.3 42.9 6.56 5.06
323 2.324 3.73 4.09 0.734 0.605 -1.58 24.7 23.9 44.4 3.0 6.56 5.05
331 2.350 3.67 3.84 0.75 1 0.618 1.62 30.4 19.0 41.0 0.0 6.28 4.85
332 2.347 3.67 3.82 0.735 0.615 0.13 29.5 21.0 42.4 1.5 6.31 4.95
333 2.345 3.66 3.70 0.737 0.608 -1.34 26.4 25.1 44.1 3.0 6.31 4.84
341 2.376 3.61 3.58 0.738 0.620 1.60 31.3 20.6 40.5 0.0 6.08 4.67
342 2.376 3.61 3.56 0.739 0.617 0.23 0.4 24.7 42.1 1.5 6.10 4.67
343 2.374 3.61 3.54 0.743 0.611 -1.10 29.4 26.5 43.7 3.0 6.11 4.66

Table 2

Tank of N.T.U.A. with dimensions 904.63.5m. The Fn 0.3 0.375 0.45

ndel was attached to the carriage via a heave rod- 15m -2.5% - 1.4% -0.7%
pitch bearing assembly, which can also measure re-
sistance electronically. Resistance, running trim L=12m 0 0 0
and squat were automatically recorded and analysed
during the test with the data aquisition and ana- L20m +5.2 +3.1% +1.1%

lysis system of the carriage, which utilizes a HP-

9845 micro-computer.
The speed range of the experiments was extend-
ed to values over 0.45Fn. No turbulence stimulators
were used. The experimental results, in the form
Fn, are shown in figs.5 to 16.
For boats with similar geometrical characteri-
stics, the resistance vs speed curve can be obtain-
ed from the above diagrams by interpolation with
regard to the 1/B, B/I and trim values. The neces-
sary formulae are:
V=Fn-
(1)
4TTQq
1000
i Fn2
Although the ©values are calculated for L12m,
their use for other boat lengths (5 to 2Dm) results
in only a small error for the resistance estimates
at the design speed range. The following table
shows the mean expected error if the uncorrected
©l2m'ae5 are used for boat lengths of 5 and
2Dm.
By observing the®vs Fn curves one can observe
that:
resistance increases very rapidly for Fn vali.
above 0.375 especially for the lower 1/B models
L/B is the doiiant parameter in the range of
high speeds(.Fn)=0.375), where an increase in
L/B results in a considerable decrease in
B/T and trim values have a small and mixed
effect on the value of
3. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING DATA
The experimental results were compared with the
F.A.O. [2] and the Antoniou [1] prediction methods.
both of which are in the form of polynomials of the
geometrical parameters of the hullforms. with coeffi-
cients determined by regression analysis on the basis
of large amounts of experimental data. The F.A0.
sample includes fishing boats from all over the rld
but some pf the proposed ranges of the huilform pa-
rameters do not cover the corresponding trehantiri
ranges. For example F.A.0. suggests use of the meth
 9,,
Fig. I rig. 2
0
rig. 3
0 0
25 4.30 0 0
4 50 0
0
0 0
0 0 8
0 0 0
20 4.00 0 0
0
00 4 pg
00 0
00
0 0
00
00 oo0 U0
0 0
15 9 50 0 3.50 0
0 00
0 00
00 0 0 0
o
o0 0
0
0 00 0
o0
3.00 9 0oo a
0
0 000 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 000
o0 0 0 0
5 2.50 2.50
0 0
0 0 0
I0 - -0-
9 12 12 14 10 10 I. (m] 10.0 15.0 L Ci3 10.0 15.0 L (aJ

\'--m7,/

Flq.4 Lines plan of model 2

B

B
121 0
B 122
123

2
2

F,,
.05 .1 .15 .2 .25 .3 .35 .4 .45 a5

Experimental results
for model I

Fl g .8

B
lit
142
---- 14a

F,,

.05 .1 .15 .2 .25 .3 .35 .4 .45 .5

.as i .15 .2 .25 .3 .3 .4.45
 Fig. 10
4/
211 221
S 212 222
- - - 213 - -. - - 223

.45 .05 .15 .2 .25 . .35 .4 .45 .5

.1 .15 .2 .25 .3 35 .4 .5 1

Experimental results
for model 2

FIg. 12

241
242
- 243

rn

05 .15 .2 .25 .3 .35 .4 .45 .5

05 IS .2 .25 .3 .35 .4 .45 .5
B
e

6
6

I
4

2
2

05 .15 .2 .25 .3 35 .4 .45 05

.5 .15 .2 .25 .3 .35 .4 .45 .5
Experimental results
for model 3
a

Fig. 15

331
332 6
333

.05 .1 .15 .2 .25 .3 .35 .4 .45 .5

 647

CR-Is 0 120

tt
Q tr,,antiri boat2
30

.0

0
0 10 1.5 2.0 a5

Fig.21 Comparison of the trehantiri boats to F.A.Q.salnplev/vt=12

APPENDIX
The 28 term regression equation of Antoniou is shown below:
The calculated values of the corresponding coefficients for seven
-Frbude numbers are also listed in Table 1.

@2flAOlLC2/V)+A3CP+A4B+A58/T+A6(I/2aE)1A7(1I2aR)+
(B/T)+

+A14(Cp)2(1/26E)+A(Cp)a(1/2á)+A(Cp)2(Cm)+A(L/B)2(j/2a) +A18(B/T)2(1/2a)+
+A19(B/T)2 (L/v'3)+A2O(L/B)2(jf2aB)+A2l(1CB) (Cp)+A22(L/vL3)(Cp)#

+A23(Cp)(L/B)+A24(Cp)(B/T)+A(Cp)(1/2a)+A(Cp)(1/2a)...A(cp)(I/2a)

Table I

Fn 0.225 0.750 0.275 0.300 0.325 0.350 0.375

-3.97811 -4.70336 -6.98376 -2 95240 -2.63760 8.04579 26. 18448
0.00219 0.05052 0.19573 0.04940 -.10261
o. a 3772 1.59213 1.38228 -.3744! 330 15 -.10072
10.71127 0.27313 -1.94301 -5 75411
11. 01926 15. 0200 3.21390 -.46201 -12.40063 -36. 79651
-.99640 -1 . 17160 -.49847 -.626 19 1.74392 4.87008 2.37829
0.79 74a -1. 16246 1.33839 4.42538 -42927 -5.40290
.) 74, 5 0.09472 -.37856 0.53343
-.06539 0.38758 0.71660 -01174
00 1826 0.02014 0.18425 0. 02097 -.13184 -.28405 -.09486
0.17564 7.11026 2.19350 -.46018 -.67003 -3. 17198 -3. 65988
- .03378 -.01954 0.00666 -.00764 0.01437 0.02111 0. 01 7-24
0. 004 42 0 00236 0. 0042 1 0.00833 0.0 1317 0.01363- 0.02595
0 11785 0.07661 0.09092 -.08030 -.17659 0.01a95 0.36364
-1.7384! -.40544 0.6367! -3. 17498 5.40111 10 40291 1.47644
1.93781 -2.64186 2. 95604 9. 85591 - 1.20532 -17.21568 -3 .3532 1
-.01174 0.12516 -1. 12137 -.3 1209 0.89109 2.10314 0.59024
0.05996 0.1134! 0.55463 0.08292 -.37906 -.76470 -.76776
-.42783 -5.97643 -6. 077 39 2.18600 2.46159 9.44061 8.49041
0.00035 0.. 00105 0. 00146 000163 0. 00144 0. 00210 0.00140
-. 00061 -.00045 -.0010! -.01)068 -.00075 0. 0 0039 0.00299
-.00441 -.06862 -.00674 -.01376 -.01354 -.01951 --.03832
0.00041 0.00036 0.00022 0. 001)27 -.00065 -.00126 -.00403
-.05353 -.13740 -.36642 -. 10614 0 14064 0.54906 0.17922
-2.32905 =3. 00 273 -7.99399 1.74545 1.54366 3. 7,2 563 6.18290
2.04050 1.57595 -.03251 2.34617 -a. :83!! -14.93995 -3.72696
-7. 16210 4. 06 1.09 -3.47300 -12. 49134 2.24690 20. 09500 2.3-3795
- 06424 -.23334 1.30917 0.30063 -I. 15284 --2.49266 -.37 106
--.06877 -.09989 -.64:62 -.00608 0.44700 0.93280 0. 31524
0.037)5 0. 01935 -02 189 -.01)056 -.00987 -.00735 0.04120
646

122 12$

I. IS

62 62

Is 4$

Is is

2 4 I I 1$ 1 4 I I 12

12$

.5

S.

4.

is

2 I S Is

30
GR-16 V/IE 0.90
I

0 twhantirt bolts

20
@:

tI e
'0

t6
0
0.5 10 '5 20 as 30

Fig.20 Comparison of the trehantiri boats to F.A.0.sample..V/1[=.9

-. .- . .-