ARTICLE IN PRESS

Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 310–322

www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

A combined method for the hydrodynamic characteristics

of planing crafts
Hassan Ghassemi, Mahmoud Ghiasi
Faculty of Marine Technology, Amirkabir University of Technology, Hafez Avenue, 15875-4413 Tehran, Iran
Received 2 June 2007; accepted 31 October 2007
Available online 6 November 2007

Abstract

The prediction of the total resistance of planing crafts at high speeds is very important. In this paper, a combined method is
investigated for determining the hydrodynamic characteristics of planing crafts in the calm water. The study consists of a potential-based
boundary element method (BEM) for the induced pressure resistance, the boundary layer theory for the frictional resistance and practical
method for the spray resistance. The planing surface is represented by a number of elements with constant velocity potential at each
element. The unknown-induced pressure is obtained by using the free surface elevation condition and the Kutta condition at the transom
stern. Hydrodynamic-induced resistance and lift are determined by the calculated dynamic pressure distributions. The boundary layer
analysis method is based on calculations of the momentum integral equation applied to obtain the frictional resistance. A particular
practical approach is introduced to present the region of the upwash geometry for the spray. A numerical program has been developed
for the present research and applied to the hull form of the craft. Four different hull forms of Series 62 model 4666 planing craft are
presented. It is shown that the present combined method is efficient and the results are in good agreement with the experimental
measurements over a wide range of volumetric Froude numbers.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Planing craft; Pressure distribution; Resistance and lift; Spray

1. Introduction
One of the main aspects of marine transportation design
is to increase the speed and the payload of a craft.
Increased demand for high-speed marine vehicles has led to
the development of several advanced hull form designs. As
the speed of displacement crafts increases, the wave-
making resistance also increases significantly, so crafts
require critically high effective power. Therefore, it is
essential to design the hull form to diminish the resistance.
The most important advantage of the planing hull is that
it generates a hydrodynamic lift, which contributes to the
reduction of the wave-making component of resistance
compared to a conventional hull. In a well-designed
planing craft, the dynamic force should be generated on
the bottom of the hull. There, the vertical lift force raises
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 66419615; fax: +98 21 66413028.
E-mail address: gasemi@cic.aut.ac.ir (H. Ghassemi).
the hull weight and payload of the planing hull. Experi-
ments have shown that the deadrise angle and the fine
bottom shape of the craft are very important for the
planing surface. The effect of the deadrise angle on
hydrodynamic force, slamming load on the hull, and high
planing efficiency leads to an average deadrise angle
between 101 and 151. The high deadrise angle and the
chine give improved sea-keeping behaviors, but create
other problems such as augmented slamming, porpoising,
and dynamical heel.
High-speed crafts generally generate spray with impact
pressure at the bow region. The direction of the spray will
induce the position of the pressure to its maximum level.
The form and nature of the spray will vary with the craft’s
speed, trim, and body plan. However, the spray contributes
to the pressure on the body, especially as the speed of the
craft increases. The resistance of the planing hull in calm
water is composed of the frictional resistance, induced
resistance, spray resistance, air and appendage resistance.

0029-8018/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2007.10.010
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Ghassemi, M. Ghiasi / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 310–322
Prediction of the resistance of a planing craft must be
performed in the early stage of design development in order
to estimate the power of the propulsor and the main
engine. In the past, researchers have applied experimental
tools and numerical computation to predict the resistance
of the planing crafts.
Savitsky (1964) has made a great contribution to the
understanding and modeling of planing crafts. He devel-
oped regression formulas based on prismatic hull form
model tests to estimate the hydrodynamic forces acting on
planing crafts. Recently, Savitsky et al. (2007) have
investigated characteristics of the wetted bottom area and
the whisker spray area for the planing craft, and detailed
the spray area for determination of the spray resistance.
Clement and Blount (1963) have conducted a comprehen-
sive set of model tests on a systematic series (Series 62).
Their work is one of the definitive sources of the planing
hull practical information. Current challenges remaining
for researchers are to employ numerical tools to design the
body, and analyze the efficiency of the planing craft. Three
numerical approaches that have been previously applied to
the planing craft are given as follows:
 The first approach by Lai and Troesch (1996) applied
the vortex lattice method (VLM) to the planing problem
where the vortex is distributed on the wetted planform
determined by the slender body theory. Savander et al.
(2002) formulated the boundary value problem for
steady planing surfaces and utilized reliable relations
between the perturbation potential and the vortex
distribution. They obtained numerical results involving
hydrodynamic pressure, lift and resistance for the
planing craft at various speed without spray.
 The next approach is the two-dimensional boundary
element method (BEM). Zhao et al. (1997) offered a
2.5D (2D+t) analysis of a high-speed planing craft in
calm water. Faltinsen (2005) has given details on the
hydrodynamics of planing craft in his current textbook.
 The third approach is finite pressure element method
(FPEM). It was first applied by Doctors (1975) to the
three-dimensional flat planing craft. The craft hull was
modeled by the equivalent pressure distribution which is
represented by pressure pyramids. The double integral
equation in the Green function was simplified to a single
integral by the use of special function. Cheng and
Wellicome (1994) developed a pressure strip method, in
which a planing surface is represented by a set of strips
of transversely variable pressure placed on the mean free
surface. Xie et al. (2005) studied hydrodynamic problem
of three-dimensional planing surface by using the vortex
theory and the finite element approach. More recently,
Wang et al. (2007) used linear pressure distribution over
each element with continuous pressure over the length of
the planing surface.
The aim of the present paper is to determine the dynamic
pressure force, frictional and spray forces by combining
311
numerical and practical methods. The BEM combined with
the boundary layer is applied to calculate the induced and
frictional resistance. Numerical results of the Series 62
model 4666 planing craft are presented. It is shown that the
method is efficient and the results are in good concordance
with the experimental measurements over a wide range of
volumetric Froude number.
2. Mathematical formulation
Once model dimensions and running conditions have
been defined, the potential flow solver based on the BEM is
employed to obtain the induced dynamic pressure, dynamic
lift, and resistance. Frictional resistance is computed by the
two-dimensional thin boundary layer, and the practical
method is utilized to evaluate the spray resistance. Fig. 1
shows the scheme of the combined numerical and practical
method for the computation of the planing craft.
2.1. Calculations of induced resistance and lift
Consider a Cartesian coordinate system fixed in the
space O-XYZ and a moving coordinate system fixed on the
boat o-xyz, as shown in Fig. 2A and B. The horizontal and
vertical axes, ox and oz, are, respectively, along and
perpendicular to the direction of motion. The origin o is at
the base plane at transom. The ship-fixed coordinate
system o-xyz is moving with constant speed, VS, in the
x-direction.
The planing hull travels with constant forward speed, Vs,
on calm water surface and unrestricted flow. The fluid
motion generated by the planing ship can be treated as
equivalent to the disturbance created by a pressure
distribution acting on the bottom of the ship. The fluid is
assumed to be inviscid, incompressible, irrotational, and
without surface tension. These assumptions lead to a
boundary value problem for the velocity potential whereas
Laplace equation is satisfied in the fluid. Under the global
Potential-based boundary element method
Planing
Boundary layer craft Practical method
theory for viscous modeling,
running on the spray
term condition resistance term
Calculation of trim,
wetted length,
total lift, total
resistance,
Fig. 1. Combined numerical and practical method for hydrodynamic
computation of the planing craft.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
312 H. Ghassemi, M. Ghiasi / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 310–322

E VS
LCG

Z C.G. chineline
z ⊕  water surface
O X
B
o x E
O - XYZ: fixed coordinate system in space C.L.
o - xyz: moving coordinate system fixed on the craft
Spray 

E−E

LK
LK – LC
LC

Y y
X x C.L.
O o
projected wetted area Spray root

Fig. 2. Planing craft configuration and coordinate systems.

coordinate system, a total velocity potential F, which Boundary conditions are given as follows:
represents flow around the pressure distribution, is
harmonic in the fluid domain and can be defined as follows: I. On the body surface:
~S  X
F¼fV ~, (1) qf ~S  ~
¼ V n þ vBL . (4)
~ is the qn
where f is the perturbation velocity potential and X
position vector. The total potential and perturbation Here, vBL is the velocity which can be obtained from
potential are both governed by Laplace’s equation the solution of the thin boundary layer given by
( Takinaci et al. (2003) as
r2 F ¼ 0;
(2)
r2 f ¼ 0: qðU e d Þ
vBL ¼ , (5)
qs
The potential f is computed by the BEM, which is
based on Green’s identity. In general, the boundary where s is the line along the surface of the craft, Ue is
surface includes the body surface (SB) and the free surface the flow velocity at the edge of the boundary layer, and
(SF). Thus, the perturbation potential f is given by d* is the displacement thickness. The solution is based
the following integral expression with points Q on on the two-dimensional boundary layer.
body surface and free surface SB+SF and P in the fluid
domain D. II. On the free surface:
Z  
qG qfðQÞ ~S Þ; rz ¼ fz
ðrf  V on z ¼ zðx; yÞ. (6)
4pEfðPÞ ¼ fðQÞ  G dS, (3)
S B þS F qn qn
where z is the wave elevation
where E is the solid angle, the value of which depends  
on the position of the field point P in the fluid domain. 1 ~ 1
z¼ V S  rf þ rf  rf ; on z ¼ zðx; yÞ. (7)
If point P is placed on the boundary (body surface), g 2
then the coefficient E is replaced by 1/2. If point P is
placed inside and outside of the body then the value
of E is one and zero, respectively. G is Green’s function III. At infinity:
which might be expressed in the form G ¼ 1/r+1/r0 ,  
limrf ¼ 0; when r ! 1. (8)
where r is the distance between the field point P and the
source point Q. r0 is the distance between the field point P
and the image of source point relative to the mean free IV. Boundary condition on the free surface: The resulting
surface. boundary-value problem is non-linear due to the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Ghassemi, M. Ghiasi / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 310–322
non-linearity of the boundary conditions on the free
surface. Here, the linearized boundary-value problem
is obtained by omitting the non-linear terms in the
boundary conditions. Then, the linearized boundary
conditions are satisfied on the undisturbed free surface
V S  zx ¼ fz on z ¼ 0, (9)
1 on-body streamlines. These on-body streamlines can be
z ¼  V S fx on z ¼ 0. (10)
g
Substituting Eq. (10) into (9), a composed boundary
condition on the free surface is obtained
fxx  K 0 fz ¼ 0 on z ¼ 0, (11)
where K 0 ðK 0 ¼ g=V 2S Þ is the wave number.
V. Kutta condition at stern-end: An important character-
istic of the planing problem is that the water surface is
cut off smoothly from the edge on the bottom of the
stern-end. The separation of the flow corresponds to the
flow at the trailing edge on classical airfoil theory and is
secured by the Kutta condition. In the computational
procedure the pressure distribution should be forced to
approach atmospheric pressure at the trailing end of the
planing surface. It is not possible to satisfy the Kutta
condition exactly, therefore an error is introduced as a
small constant value for the pressure at the trailing end
and the iteration is continued until the pressure at the
trailing end reaches this constant value. The velocity
potential f on the wetted surface boundaries S can be
calculated from Eq. (3) with respect to the above
boundary conditions. In this method, by using quad-
rilateral element discretization and distribution of
singularity strength, the integral Eq. (3) becomes an
algebraic matrix equation, which can be solved by
single-value decomposition (SVD) method.
Once the perturbation potential is obtained, the induced
velocity may be determined by the derivative of the
perturbation potential ~ vt ¼ rf. The pressure on the craft
hull surface is calculated by
~S  ~
P ¼ Pd þ Ph ¼ 0:5rð2V vt  ~
vt  ~
vt Þ þ rghz . (12)
The first term in the right-hand side of Eq. (12) is the
dynamic part of the pressure Pd that is generated by the
induced velocity. The second term is the hydrostatic
pressure Ph. The hz is immersed position of the hull
surface. The hydrodynamic forces (lift and induced
resistance) acting on the craft can be obtained by
integrating the pressure over the surface
Z B
F x ¼ Ri ¼ Pnx ds,
S AS
Z
Fy ¼ Pny ds ¼ 0,
S
Z
Fz ¼ Fv ¼ L ¼ Pnz ds, ð13Þ
S Fig. 3. Flow direction and scope of the spray area.
313
where ~nðnx ; ny ; nz Þ is outward unit normal vector on the
craft.
2.2. Boundary layer theory and frictional resistance
The effect of viscosity can be approximated based on a
two-dimensional boundary layer model by computing
calculated once the velocities at the control points of each
element are known. The boundary layer displacement
thickness can be calculated after applying a simple surface
interpolation procedure for the control points. This
approach has been successfully applied to a wide range of
complex flow problems, and provides a more adaptable
and vigorous engineering solution to the fully three-
dimensional boundary layer method. In the present study,
the boundary layer analysis method is based on the
calculations of the momentum integral equations, Head’s
entrainment, and Luwieg–Tillman’s equations turbulent
condition (Cebeci and Bradshow, 1977). The results are
thickness d, the displacement thickness d*, momentum
thickness y*, of the boundary layer and frictional
coefficient Cf. For each element in the longitudinal
stripwise of the craft, the section frictional resistance RF
is obtained by
Z s Z l wetðjÞ
dx
RF ¼ t0 ds ¼ 0:5r C f U 2e dx
0 ds 0
N
X Strip
¼ 0:5r C f U 2e ðDxÞ, ð14Þ
k¼1
whereas Cf and t0 are, respectively, the local frictional
coefficient and shear stress on each element. NStrip is the
number of strips in the longitudinal direction.
2.3. Upwash geometry and spray resistance
The spray resistance for the planing craft caused by the
pressure and viscous friction component can be difficult to
evaluate. Fig. 3 is an outline of the wetted bottom area of
the hull when planing. It is observed that the area is
essentially divided into two zones. Where one is aft of the
stagnation line, which is referred to as the pressure area.
Length of Stagnation Line = OC
Bottom Pressure Area = AP
Spray Area = AS
C
AP   O
LC
LK
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
314 H. Ghassemi, M. Ghiasi / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 310–322

It is surrounded by the wetted keel length ‘LK’, the two the configuration of the spray jet. In the chine-wet region
wetted chine lengths ‘LC’, the transom, and the stagnation (section F–F), the sideway flow separates at the sharp
lines (OC). The stagnation line is occasionally referred to as chine, where the hydrodynamic pressure adapts to atmo-
the spray root line since the longitudinal distance between spheric pressure.
the two lines is rather small. The direction of the fluid The hydrodynamic pressure of the spray is proportional
velocity in this region is mainly aft as shown in Fig. 3 and is to the geometrical configuration of the hull (such as the
attached to the bottom. It is also shown that the flow deadrise, the trim, and chine wet/dry regions) and
velocity along the spray-root line is mainly alongside the operational conditions (such as the craft speed and the
direction of the stagnation line. resulting free surface waves). In this, the following practical
Spray resistance is related to the characteristics of the method is utilized to determine the spray resistance. Spray
‘‘upwash’’ resulting from the foremost bow penetration of surface may practically be expressed by the following
the planing hull and the still water surface. A practical equation:
method is employed to estimate the spray resistance. The
spray region depends on the deadrise and the trim angles. ASpray ¼ K 1 ðLK  LC ÞB= cos b, (17)
For prismatic hull forms, the following relationship
between the wetted length, trim angle, and deadrise angle where K1 depends on the speed of the craft and is given as
is given by Savitsky (1964): follows:
8
B tan b
< 0:2
> if Fnr o3;
LK  LC ¼ . (15)
p tan t K 1 ¼ f ðFnr Þ ¼ 0:4 if 3pFnr o5; (18)
>
: 0:7
Bowles and Denny (2005) offered a methodical model if Fnr X5;
tool for predicting the water surface disturbance in
proximity of the bow of a planing hull by the following where Fnr is  the volumetric Froude number
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
equation:
Fnr ¼ V S = gr1=3 , and r is the volume displacement.
B tan b 1
LK  LC ¼ . (16) The pressure due to spray can then be calculated by the
2 tan t ð1=1 þ tanðbÞ tanðb=2ÞÞ1=2 þ 1
following equation:
The parameters in above formulae are indicated in
Fig. 2. The dynamic pressure on the planing craft is related PS ¼ K 2 :P ðat bow of the keelÞ, (19)
to the relative flow around the hull. The craft is assumed to
run in steady state in calm water with constant speed VS, where P is the pressure obtained from the Eq. (11) at the
and trim angle t. The principal characteristics in the chine- nearest element to the spray root. The variations of the
dry zone is demonstrated in section E–E (Fig. 4). At the estimated K2 coefficient at the two bow sections b(y) due to
spray root, i.e. the junction between the deformed water
line and the hull, a spray-jet is created. The topmost point
in the hydrodynamic pressure distribution is associated to

2
y
LK
E F LC
VS
K2

LCG
C.G. 1

x
Aspray

E F 0
B -0.50 -0.25 0.0 0.25 0.50
y/B
b (y)
b (y)
z

E–E F–F y
T (z)
Chines - dry characteristics Chines - wet characteristics 

Fig. 4. Jet flow and its pressure at the bow. Fig. 5. Estimated K2 coefficients at the bow region.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Ghassemi, M. Ghiasi / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 310–322 315

spray is specified in Fig. 5 and can be approximated as

8
<2
> if bðyÞo0:5B;
K 2 ¼ f ðb; t; bðyÞÞ ¼ 1:5 if 0:5BobðyÞo0:9B; (20)
>
: 1:2 if 0:9BobðyÞoB:
The spray resistance and lift generated by the spray can
be estimated separately by the following equations:
RSpray ¼ PS ASpray sin t, (21)
Model-a: Series 62 model 4666
LSpray ¼ PS ASpray cos t. (22)

2.4. Total resistance and lift

The most important force acting on the planing craft is
the summation of the hydrodynamic forces generated by
the hydrodynamic pressures produced on the bottom of the
craft. This force is divided into the induced resistance and
the vertical lift. The potential-based BEM is applied to Model-b: Convex model
determine the hydrodynamic force, including the boundary
layer effect. The initial step in the numerical solution is to
create a mesh based on the hull and the free surface.
The total resistance and effective power of the planing
craft is expressed as follows:
RT ¼ RF þ Ri þ RSpray , (23)

PE ¼ RT V S . (24)
The hydrodynamic lift and buoyancy are calculated by Model-c: Flat model
the following equations:
R
Ld ¼ Sw Pd nz dS;
R (25)
Ls ¼ Sw Ps nz dS:

A number of non-dimensional parameters are used in

this study, which are defined as:
The non-dimensional pressure coefficient
P
CP ¼ . (26)
1=2rV 2S Model-d: Concave model
The non-dimensional lift (hydrodynamic and hydrostatic Fig. 6. Body plan of various model bottom forms.
lift) and resistance coefficients
Ld Table 1
C Ld ¼ , (27) Main parameters of the series 62 model 4666
1=2rV 2S Sw
Parameters Value
Ls
C Ls ¼ , (28) L (m) 21.5
1=2rV 2S S w D (Ton) 45
L/B 3.06
RT LCG (% L) (abaft amidships) 6
CT ¼ . (29)
1=2rV 2S S w Ap/r2/3 7.0
b̄ ðdeg:Þ 12.5

3. Numerical results and discussion
3.1. Model series 62 with various body plan
In this section, the hydrodynamics of planing crafts with
prismatic and non-prismatic hulls with known geometrical
parameters are investigated, using the outlined methods.
A number of different body plans from the series-62 planing
craft have been selected (Fig. 6). The main dimensions of the
crafts are shown in Table 1. All crafts have the same dimen-
sions and displacement. However, each craft has a different
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
316 H. Ghassemi, M. Ghiasi / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 310–322

deadrise angle at each transverse section. Four models have surface. The wetted length is estimated by an iterative
been evaluated from the hydrodynamic point of view. procedure to obtain the converged solution satisfying the
Each craft operates with steady forward motion in calm Kutta condition along the trailing edge.
water. The hydrodynamic pressure produced on the
bottom of hull craft is calculated at each speed by the 3.2. Surface mesh generation and numerical technique
BEM. At fully planing speed, the hydrodynamic lift which
is generated from the pressure should be balanced with the The wetted body surface and free surface are discretized
weight of the craft. When the speed increases, the vertical to the quadrilateral elements. The discretized form of
center of gravity (VCG) rises so the draft of the craft is integral Eq. (3) for the wetted surface of the body and free
diminished, and the new mesh is generated on the wetted surface as expressed (Tarafder, 2007)
XNB NB 
X 
qfðQÞ
fðPi Þ ¼ fðQj Þ½DBij   ½SBij 
j¼1 j¼1
qn j
ðiajÞ

NF 
X 
qfðQÞ
 ½SFij ; Pi 2 ðS B [ SF Þ, ð30Þ
j¼1
qn j

where
Z Z
1 qG ij 1
DBij ¼ dS j ; SBij ¼ G ij dSj ,
4pE SB qn 4pE SB
Z
1 1
SFij ¼ dSj , ð31Þ
4pE SF rij
and NB and NF are the number of elements on the wetted
hull and free surfaces, respectively. The velocity component
(qf/qn) is known on the body surface from Eq. (4), while
that is unknown on the free surface. Due to linearized free
surface condition, it can be defined as qf/qn ¼ qf/
qz ¼ s. The influence coefficients (DBij, SBij, SFij) are
calculated by Morino et al. (1974).
In order to satisfy the free surface boundary condition,
f(PiASF), E ¼ 1, (from Eq. (30)) is substituted into
Eq. (11). Then, we have
X
NB
q2 ½DBij  X NB
q2 ½SBij 
fj  ðV~S  ~n þ vBL Þj
qx 2 qx2
j¼1 j¼1
!
X
NF
q2 ½SFij 
þ sj  K 0 dij ¼ 0; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; N F .
j¼1
qx2
ð32Þ

0.4
Fn = 3.35
Strip 1 (Adjacent to keel)
0.3 Strip 5
Strip 9 (near to chine)
 [m]

0.2

0.1

Stern Bow
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x/ L

Fig. 8. Boundary layer thickness (d) on the model-a (Vs ¼ 20 m/s or

Fig. 7. Mesh surface of various forms of models (from bottom view). Fn ¼ 3.35).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Ghassemi, M. Ghiasi / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 310–322 317

For fðPi 2 SB Þ; E ¼ 0:5, Eq. (30) is expressed as Here, the second derivative of the influence coefficients
X
NB X
NB (DBxx, SBxx, SFxx) are computed by four-point finite
fj ½dij  DBij   ~S :~
ðV n þ vBL Þj ½SBij  difference operator (Dawson, 1977) and also four-point
j¼1 j¼1 upstream operator is introduced to satisfy the condition of
X
NF no waves propagating upstream.
þ sj ½SFij  ¼ 0; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; N B , ð33Þ Another matrix form of Eq. (34) is
j¼1
½AN T N T fxgN T 1 ¼ fbgN T 1 , (35)
where dij is Kronecker delta function. The total numbers of
unknowns are NB+NF ( ¼ NT). NB is the number of For this type of problem, a formal solution may be given
potential (f) on the wetted body surface and NF is the by the direct solution methods of LU decomposition or
number of velocity components (s) on the free surface. The Gaussian elimination. However, the solution vector may
matrix form of combined Eqs. (32) and (33) are expressed as have extensively large components whose algebraic elim-
" #( ) ination, when multiplied by the matrix A, may give a poor
½d  DBN B N B ½SFN B N F ffgN B 1
approximation for the right-hand vector b. This affects the
½DBxx N F N B ½K 0 d þ SFxx N F N F fsgN F 1 errors in the solution of the matrix Eq. (32). In the present
" # 8 9
½SBN B N B ½0N B N F < fV ~S :~n þ vBL gN B 1 = study, a SVD technique has been adopted to solve matrix
¼ . Eq. (32) (Press et al., 1986).
½SBxx N F N B ½0N F N F : f0gN F 1 ;

ð34Þ 0.006
Fn = 3.35
Strip 1 (Adjacent to keel)
0.005
0.012 Strip 5
Buoyant Coef. (CLs)
Strip 9 (near to chine) Lift coef. (CLd)
0.004
0.009
CLd CLs

Fn = 3.35 0.003

0.006
Cf

0.002

0.003 0.001

0
0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Aft x/L Fore
x/L
Fig. 11. Distribution of buoyancy and hydrodynamic lift coefficient for
Fig. 9. Frictional coefficient (Cf) for model-a (Vs ¼ 20 m/s or Fn ¼ 3.35). model-b, Fnr ¼ 3.35.

0.1
Fn = 3.35 Strip-1 (adjacent to Keel) Strip-5 Strip-10 (near the chine)

0.08

0.06
Cp

0.04

0.02

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Stern x/L Bow
-0.02

Fig. 10. Distribution of pressure coefficient at various longitudinal stripwise for model-b, Fnr ¼ 3.35.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
318 H. Ghassemi, M. Ghiasi / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 310–322

Fig. 7 shows the mesh surface of the all four models. The
model meshes shown in this figure are generated for the
keel line to the chine line. The side is not included in this
mesh surface, because it does not affect on the hydro-
dynamic force or spray force. In total, 600 (30  20)
elements on the hull surface and 1800 (60  30) elements on
the free surface have been coordinated in the computa-
tions. Although the elements on the flat transom are
shown in Fig. 7 but they are not considered in the
calculations due to separation flow at the transom stern
(Maki et al., 2005).
From a practical point of view, the wetted area is
unknown for a given planing ship with specified profile,
weight, and centre of gravity for a given speed. In order to
obtain a unique pressure solution for Eq. (12), the shape of
the projected wetted area must be prescribed, i.e. for chine-
wet case, the wetted length along each longitudinal buttock
and the number of the pressure elements need to be
prescribed. By this means, the wetted length is estimated
initially and then adjusted by an iterative procedure until
the Kutta condition is satisfied along the trailing edge. In
the iterative procedure, the initial estimated values of the
wetted lengths are obtained using Savitsky’s empirical
formula. Different approximations of double body and
free surface at various volumetric Froude numbers
have been numerically tested for the planing craft. It was

0.12 Strip-1 (adjacent to keel) Strip-5 Strip-10 (near the chine)

Fn = 5.0
0.1

0.08
Cp

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Stern x/L Bow

Fig. 12. Distribution of pressure coefficient at various longitudinal stripwise for model-b, Fnr ¼ 5.0.

0.02

Fn = 5.0

0.016
Buoyant Coef. (CLs)
Hydrodynamic Coef. (CLd)
0.012
CLs CLd

0.008

0.004

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Aft x/L Bow

Fig. 13. Distribution of buoyant and hydrodynamic lift coefficient for model-b, Fnr ¼ 5.0.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Ghassemi, M. Ghiasi / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 310–322 319

found that for the volumetric Froude number approxi-
mately greater than 2.5, the single body and free surface
flow model can be used instead of double body and free
surface flow model.
3.3. Boundary layer
The boundary layer thickness and frictional coefficient
for the model-a at Fnr ¼ 3.35 are shown, respectively, in
Figs. 8 and 9 for various strips from bow to stern. The strip
1 is adjacent to the keel and the strip 9 is near the chine.
The starting point of bow at each strip is different because
in the moving condition the hydrodynamic pressures
generate lift, thereby, planing the craft with some trim
angle.
3.4. Pressure distribution and hydrodynamic lift and
resistance
The surface pressure distribution is essential for the
design and analysis of the planing craft. Figs. 10 and 12
show the pressure coefficient defined by Eq. (26),
which includes both hydrodynamics and hydrostatics
pressures terms for two speeds, i.e. Vs ¼ 20 and 30 m/s
(or Fnr ¼ 3.35, Fnr ¼ 5.0). The figures show that high
pressures mostly occur in the bow part and low pressures in
the stern part. In the chine-dry area the largest pressures
are predicted by the spray practical calculations.
The longitudinal variation of the hydrodynamic
and
hydrostatic (buoyancy) coefficients C Ld ; C Ls from the
bow to stern are shown in Figs. 11 and 13 for model-b at

Buoyancy Coef. (CLs)-Prismatic Buoyancy Coef. (CLs)-Convex

Buoyancy Coef. (CLs)-Concave Lift Coef. (CLd)-Prismatic
0.01 Lift Coef. (CLd)-Convex Lift Coef. (CLd)-Concave

Fn = 3.35
0.008

0.006
CLs CLd

0.004

0.002

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
x/L
-0.002 Aft Bow

Fig. 14. Comparison of hydrodynamic lift and buoyancy coefficients for three models (b–c–d) Fnr ¼ 3.35.

100
Rspray [KN] Rinduced [KN]
90
RF [KN] RT [KN]
80

70
Resistance [KN]

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Fn

Fig. 15. Resistance components for Series 62 for various volumetric Froude number.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
320 H. Ghassemi, M. Ghiasi / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 310–322

7
Exp. Data; (Clement & Blount)
6 Present method

Trim [Deg] 5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Fn

Fig. 16. Comparison of trim angle for Series 62 model 4666 for various volumetric Froude number.

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
Ld / W

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Fn

Fig. 17. Dynamic lift–weight ratio (Ld/W) for Series 62 model 4666 for various volumetric Froude number.

two volumetric Froude numbers (Fnr=3.35, Fnr=5.0). 0.25

Figs. 12–14 further shows the comparison of the hydro- Exp. Data; (Clement & Blount)
dynamic and buoyancy coefficients for three models (b, c, Present method
0.2
d) at Fnr=3.35. The results display that for the concave
model the hydrodynamic lift is relatively less than the two
0.15
others (prismatic and convex models) at the bow part.
Rt/W

Resistance components are shown in Fig. 15, where the

0.1
induced resistance is proportional to the trim angle.
Additionally, the frictional and spray resistances are
0.05
shown to increase as the speed is increased. At the take-
off point the total resistance is lower than after the hump
condition. Take-off speed is about Fnr ¼ 2.56 as shown in 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Figs. 15 and 18.
Fn
The trim of the craft depends on the generated pressure of
the hull and is proportional to the induced resistance. Fig. 16 Fig. 18. Comparison of resistance–weight ratio (Rt/W) for series 62 model
shows the comparison of the trim at various Froude 4666 for various volumetric Froude number.

H. Ghassemi, M. Ghiasi / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 310–322
3500
3000
2500
Effective power (KW)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.5
Fig. 19. Effective power (PE[KW]) comparison with Series 62 model 4666 data for various volumetric Froude number.
numbers. The range of the trim angle is 1.51oto61. The
maximum trim angle obtained in this study is 61 and 51 by
experimental data and diminishes with increasing craft speed,
except at low speed. The dynamic lift to weight ratio (L/W) is
shown in Fig. 17. The hydrodynamic lift to weight ratio
(L/W) is about 65% and 85% at Fnr ¼ 3.35 and Fnr ¼ 5.0,
respectively. The comparison of the resistance–weight ratio
(Rt/W) and effective power (PE[KW]) are shown in Figs. 18
and 19 for a variety of volumetric Froude numbers for the
Series 62. The computed values agree with the experimental
data over the entire Froude numbers range 1–6.
4. Conclusions
The boundary element method presented analyzes the
hydrodynamics of the planing hull surface including the
boundary layer effects. A particular procedure has been
utilized to obtain the spray resistance. Four models have
been selected and a number of numerical results have been
compared and shown to be in good agreement with the
experimental data. Specifically, the following conclusions
have been drawn:
 Comparison of the pressure distribution for the three
models shows that a concave planing model may give
further lift and induced resistance relative to the other
models.
 The practical method is very effective for estimating the
spray resistance.
 It is calculated that the hydrodynamic lift to weight ratio
(L/W) is about 65% and 85% at Fnr ¼ 3.35 and 5.0,
respectively.
 Greater emphasis on numerical computation of the
jump pressure due to the spray is recommended as an
alternative to the present practical method.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
321
Present method
Exp. Data; (Clement & Blount)
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Fn
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Amirkabir University of
Technology. Furthermore, Dr. David Molyneux of the
National Research Council of Canada’s Institute for Ocean
Technology is acknowledged for his help in revising the
manuscript.
References
Bowles, B.J., Denny, B.S., 2005. Water surface disturbance near the
bow of high speed, hard chine hull forms. In: Eight International
Conference on Fast Sea Transportation Fast’ St. Petersburg, Russia.
Cebeci, T., Bradshow, P., 1977. Momentum Transfer in Boundary Layers.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cheng, X., Wellicome, J.F., 1994. Study of planing hydrodynamics using
strips of transversely variable pressure. Journal of Ship Research 38
(2), 30–41.
Clement, E.P., Blount, D.L., 1963. Resistance tests of systematic series of
planing hull forms. SNAME Transactions 71, 491–579.
Dawson, C.W., 1977. A practical computer method for solving ship-wave
problems. In: Proceedings of Second International Conference on
Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, pp. 30–38.
Doctors, L.J., 1975. Representation of three dimensional planing surfaces
by finite elements. Proceedings of the First Conference on Numerical
Ship Hydrodynamics, 1975, pp. 517–537.
Faltinsen, O.M., 2005. Hydrodynamics of High-Speed Marine Vehicles.
Cambridge University Press, New York.
Lai, C., Troesch, A.W., 1996. A vortex lattice method for high speed planing.
International Journal of Numerical Method in Fluids 22, 495–513.
Maki, K.J., Doctors, L.J., Beck, R.F., Troesch, A.W., 2005. Transom-stern
flow for high-speed craft. In: Proceedings of the Eight International
Conference on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST 2005), Saint Petersburg,
Russia.
Morino, L., Chen, L.T., Suciu, E.O., 1974. Steady and oscillatory subsonic
and supersonic aerodynamics around complex configurations. AIAA
Journal 13 (3), 368–374.
Press, W., Teukolsky, S., Vettering, W., Flannery, B., 1986. Numerical
Recipes in FORTRAN 77: The Art of Scientific Computing.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
322 H. Ghassemi, M. Ghiasi / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 310–322

Savander, B.R., Scorpio, S.M., Taylor, R.K., 2002. Steady hydrodynamic
of planing surface. Journal of Ship Research 46 (4), 248–279.
Savitsky, D., 1964. Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls. Journal of
Marine Technology 1 (1), 71–95.
Savitsky, D., DeLorme, M.F., Raju, D., 2007. Inclusion of whisker spray
drag in performance prediction method for high-speed planing hulls.
Journal of Marine Technology 44 (1), 35–56.
Takinaci, A.C., Atlar, M., Korkut, E., 2003. Practical surface panel
method to predict velocity distribution around a three-dimensional
hydrofoil including boundary layer effects. Journal of Ocean
Engineering 30, 163–183.
Tarafder, S., 2007. Third order contribution to the wave-making resistance of
a ship at finite depth of water. Journal of Ocean Engineering 34, 32–44.
Wang, X., Day, H., Alexander, A., 2007. Numerical instability in
linearized planing problems. International Journal of Numerical
Methods Engineering 70, 840–875.
Xie, N., Vassalos, D., Jasionowski, A., 2005. A study of hydrodynamics of
three-dimensional planing surface. Journal of Ocean Engineering 32,
1539–1555.
Zhao, R., Faltinsen, O.M., Haslum, H.A., 1997. A simplified nonlinear
analysis of a high-speed planing craft in calm water. In: Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, Australia.