THE THIRD CHESAPEAKE POWER BOAT SYMPOSIUM

ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND, JUNE 2012

ON APPLICATION OF PARAMETRIC METHOD FOR DESIGN OF

PLANING CRAFT
Albert Nazarov, Albatross Marine Design, Thailand

Summary

Paper describes features of parametric method based on combined analysis of main dimensions and volumes, weight
components, performance and range predictions, seakeeping and construction cost of planing craft. Method is
derived from statistics of designs of special, pleasure and small commercial monohull craft with hull length below
30m, developed by Albatross Marine Design. Dimensions of hull are defined from usable areas and essential
volumes, with recommendations provided for different architectural types of boats. Equations are proposed for
weight groups based on hull dimensions, horsepower, type of propulsion system, level of accommodations and
furnishing, required payload, etc. Approaches for preliminary estimate of powering, range, fuel efficiency, ride
stability are provided. Method proved to be efficient tool for design analysis, optimization and feasibility check of
design requirements. Case studies are presented illustrating application of parametric approach for different designs.

KEY WORDS: Planing boats, performance prediction, table of weights, design optimization

Introduction

Growing demand for efficient high-speed planing craft, intended for patrol, rescue, passenger transportation and
recreational purposes requires application of advanced design methods in this competitive market niche. Usually
tender conditions for such craft provide certain margins for main particulars; length of craft could be specified in
range of ± 20%. Boat designers are often facing the questions if the craft specified in design requirements is
feasible, they require tools for prompt evaluation of design options, setting starting point of design, preliminary
specs and cost estimates for builders. In such conditions, justified selection of craft’s particulars for feasibility and
operational functionality is becoming an important engineering task.

Present paper provides summary of experience of Albatross Marine Design (AMD) in field of high-speed monohull
craft design with volumetric Froude numbers of FnV≥2.5 and length below 30m. Formulas and recommendations
presented below are based on statistics and research performed by AMD if not specified otherwise.

Design approaches

From design practice, major considerations affecting selection of characteristics of planing craft are:

• Layout (in terms of areas and volumes) – for accommodation and functioning of passengers, crew,
personnel and equipment;
• Weights, including lightship weight and deadweight components;
• Performance – maximum or cruising speed for given sea states and load conditions;
 • Range or endurance – ability to travel certain distance at certain speed;
• Seakeeping – level of vertical accelerations at desired sea state and speed, with respect to physical
conditions of people and functioning of equipment;
• Construction costs.

Factors above are primary ones in defining craft’s dimensions at early design stages, while other factors can be
clarified on later stages. Most of high-speed craft follow the philosophy of ‘equivalent safety’; this means safety is
provided by craft’s limited range and ability to promptly reach shelter that allows sacrificing some of its qualities.
For instance, intact stability is being assessed in more charitable conditions compared to seagoing vessels and
usually presents no problem on later design stages excerpt for unusually narrow or tall craft. Meanwhile, for
preliminary estimates of stability of planing powerboats method proposed by author in [7] can be applied.

New design usually starts from careful analysis of existing designs in terms of their characteristics, advantages and
disadvantages. Initial estimates of craft’s particulars are performed on preliminary stages by using parent craft as a
prototype. Design method that relies on using specifications of similar boat(s) as starting point for new design is
often referred as parent craft method. This is classic approach [12-14] but when it comes to high-speed boats it
would work in very limited number of cases. As analysis of planing boat strongly depends on speed requirements,
drive type, material, etc., and once those are different from parent craft the whole analysis might become inaccurate
and misleading. Additionally, with today’s progress in high speed craft design and technology of composite
materials available parent craft might become obsolete and will not provide fair base for comparisons.

For scaling of parent planing craft, the following ratios deriving from statistics can be used:

L = kL0
B = k 0.75 B0 ; D = k 0.75 D0
V = k 2.5V0

where L, B, D, V – length, beam, depth and volume displacement of new design; L0, B0, D0, V0 – length, beam,
depth and volume displacement of parent craft; k – scaling factor for craft length. These formulas work in range of
k=0.8…1.2 and for somewhat similar Froude numbers for parent craft and new design. In most of design
commissions, departures from parent craft in terms of accommodation volumes and desired speed could be
significant; this will affect the result in unfavorable way.

Another approach is often referred as parametric method and is based on mathematical description of craft
properties, allowing generation of abstract design options from input of few independent variables. At early stages
of design set of candidate designs is developed in terms of dimensions, weights and other descriptive parameters.
This stage is done prior to sketching of general arrangement, but usually architectural type of craft is already known
and defined by statement of requirements. This approach allows optimizing design for given set of criteria, and
design is developed into more detail at further stages. Parametric model of planing craft presented in this paper
proved to be adequate and gives the opportunity to study whole range of design possibilities and best fit into design
envelope.

Base system of design equations describing planing craft can be written as following:

∑v i ≤ vA 

M = ρgV 
vS ≥ [vS ]R 

r ≥ [r ]R 

aCG  aCG  
≤ 
g  g  max 

S → min 

Where first equation is relation of sum of required volumes vi and available volume vA; second equation is balance
of craft mass M and volume displacement V; third and fourth are comparisons of design speed vS and range r with
required speed [vS]R and range [r]R. Fifth equation specifies condition of seakeeping as not exceeding certain
acceleration level aCG/g. Last equation is criteria of minimization of construction cost S, though operational costs
might be considered for complete analysis. Further sections of present paper cover description of planing craft for
use in parametric model.
Volumes and areas

Estimate of layout can be done at preliminary design stages by study of parent craft and preliminary sketching of
general arrangement, based on decided architectural type of craft. More formal approach includes estimate of
required volumes and deck areas. Volume of hull required for required arrangement can be defined from following
condition:

∑ v ≤ [δ L
i H ]
BH D + ∑ libi hi × kUV

where kUV – total volume utilization coefficient; δ - volume (block) coefficient of hull; LH, BH - hull length and hull
beam of craft, m; D – hull depth, m; li, bi, hi – length, beam and height of i-th superstructure, m. Sum of volumes vi
includes volumes of compartments required for crew, passengers and personnel, cargo and stores, also equipment
and machinery.

Accommodation spaces are planned following principles of ergonomics and sanitary requirements. Most of sanitary
regulations for commercial ships require cabin area 3.6…5.0 m2 and volume of 6 m3 per person; this can hardly be
reached on craft with LH<20m. On other side, if crew is supposed to live on board permanently those areas or
equivalent solutions should be provided. For other craft those regulations are applied selectively. Some minimal
sanitary requirements [9] are summarized below:

• Cabin for 1 crew - 7.5m2

• Cabin for 2 crew – 11.5m2
• Cabin for 4 crew – 14.5m2
• Dining room for crew – 1.5m2 per person
• Toilet rooms – 1.5m2
• Toilet room with shower pad – 2.0m2

Similar factors are presented in [14] and number of standards for commercial ships. On smaller boats and pleasure
craft those dimensions are rarely satisfied; though as a guideline areas can be taken as 50…70% from specified
above.

For passenger craft with seats saloon deck area should be taken 0.5..0.9 m2 per person. This number includes
utilization of space for passageways and access spaces. Crew boats and craft used for personnel transportation tend
to possess higher deck area factors. When developing the layout requirements of HSC Code [4] and other light craft
regulations should be considered, restricting use of 4% of front deck area being prone to collision damage.

Volume of engine room derives from its length lER, m, which is a function of installed power, propulsion type and
amount to auxiliary equipment:

lER = 0.072k ER ( PT / z ) 0.46

where kER – engine room length coefficient; kER=1.8...2.0 for propellers and shafts; kER=2.2...2.6 for jet drives;
kER=1.3...1.7 for sterndrives, surface drives and pod drives; PT – total installed horsepower, h.p.; z – number of drive
units (1 or 2).

Arrangement of equipment and required volumes and areas are often specified directly in statement of design
requirements. Volume of fuel tanks compartment can be defined from required volume of fuel vF and volume
utilization factors kF, comprising kF=0.85 for integral tanks and kF =0.6 for built-in bottom tanks

Usually volumes and areas are critical factor defining dimensions of planing craft intended for transportation of
passengers or light weight cargo, or carrying some special equipment. For other types of planing craft layout
requirements used to be satisfied without problems and are resolved at stage of preliminary sketching of general
arrangement.

Hull shape parameters

Hull shape ratios and parameters should be linked together prior to use in parametric model, though model should
allow their customizations. From statistics, beam BH of planning craft is related to length of hull LH as
BH=0.66LH0.7±10%; higher discrepancy might occur for some craft with forced transportable beam limit. Midship
depth D is given by the ratio: D=0.36LH0.7±15%.

Freeboard requirements derive from wetness and reserve buoyancy considerations, and following ISO12217-1
minimum freeboard can be taken as downflooding height FM=LH/(10…20) for craft with LH<24m, depending on
level of decking, intended category, etc. For most of real craft, freeboard is strongly affected by accommodation
spaces and exceeds minimal value.

Hull shape factors such as block coefficient CB, etc. can be estimated using statistical formulas based on analysis of
number of V-bottom hulls:

 B 
C B = 1 − tan β  × (0.006β + 0.64)
 4TC 

where L, B – length and beam of hull at waterline, m; TC – hull draft, m; β - deadrise angle, degrees. Volume
displacement of hull is defined as V=LBTCCB. Static load factor C∆ is used to estimate ability of hull to plane,
depending on hull chine beam BC:

V
C∆ = 3
BC

For monohull planing craft, C∆ =0.1…0.5; for efficient planing recommended range is C∆ =0.2…0.3. Exceeding this
range would cause excessive running trim angle and increased hump of resistance. Lower factors might cause
unstable ride.

Recommendations on optimum L/B ratio for high deadrise hulls could be given; the following formula is valid for
L/B=2…5; FnV=2.5…5.0:

[L / B ]opt = 4.83 − 0.899FnV +5.42C∆

Selection of optimum longitudinal center of gravity LCG is important for performance estimates, while in range of
Froude numbers FnV=3.0…3.5 resistance shows low sensitivity on LCG position. Stability of ride of planing craft at
early stages of design can be evaluated using methods proposed in [3,5,13]; but from design practice, these factors
are addressed at further design stages.

Performance

For planing craft, even small inaccuracies in performance estimates can result significant difference in delivered
speed. Thus thorough analysis of performance is required with proper power margins and overweight factors
introduced [1]. In general, for planing craft prediction of performance includes calculations or measurements of:
• Resistance R(v) or effective power PE(v);
• Speed with given installed power PS and propulsion units;
• Running trim τ(v)
• Elements of wetted surface SW(v);
• Stability of ride;
• Hull-propeller interaction factors t, w.

At very early stages of design only required power for certain speed is of interest, while other performance
parameters being clarified at later stages. Moreover, as most of hull shape parameters are unknown, thus only
‘potential’ of speed should be estimated, based on statistics and relying on later adjustments.
For purposes of parametric model simplified formulas can be used. Most of simplified formulas for planing craft [6]
possess following structure:

u
PS
v=C × [a1 , a2 ...]
∆m
where v – speed; С – coefficient; PS – installed shaft power; ∆ - displacement; u, m – power exponents, a1, a2 –
optional parameters. For widespread Crouch formula C=150...220 depending on type of craft; u=m=0.5; PS –
installed power in h.p.; ∆ - displacement in lbs; parameters a1, a2 are not applied. For admiralty coefficients formula
С is defined from parent craft, u=m=0.67. Important is that coefficients in formula should be ‘anchored’ to existing
craft tested in reliable way in known conditions.

For planing craft with volumetric Froude numbers FnV>3.0 following method of speed estimates based on optimum
characteristics of planing surface can be applied. The calculations are made using dynamic load factor Cb and
hydrodynamic efficiency K=∆/R, and proved to work at Cb<0.1:

2 gV
Cb = 2
v 2 BC
0.124
K β=0 = 11.4 −
Cb

K β = K β =0 cos(2.25β )

where V – volume displacement, m3; BC – chine beam, m; v – boat speed, m/s; β - deadrise angle, deg. Required
shaft power PS, kW, can be estimated as:

1 ρgV
PS = Rv = v
η 1000K β η

where ρ - density of water, kg/m3; g=9.81 m/s2 – gravity acceleration. This formula can take into account drive type
by using appropriate propulsive efficiency factor η provided in [2, 12] comprising η=0.55…0.70 depending on
speed and drive particulars.

On further stages of analysis, algorithms for known resistance prediction methods such as Savitsky, series 62,
Robinson, etc. can be applied within parametric model [1,2,8,10]. Specific feature of planing craft is wide range of
possible propulsion types solutions. Significant components of planing craft resistance are aerodynamic drag and
appendages drag each of those can comprise 15…20% of total resistance. Thus, comparison of craft with different
configurations of drives, appendages and cabins should include evaluation of possible effect of those drag
components.

The worst thing the designer can do at preliminary design stages is to rely on optimistic power predictions or to
provide those predictions to the customer. To avoid this, proper power margins should be used and specified.

Service power margins derive from requirements to deliver design speed at certain wave and wind conditions. As a
guideline, recommendations from [12] can be used. Speed margin is the ratio of speed delivered at given seastate to
speed at calm sea:

Sea state 2-3:

Power margin ∆P=20±5%
Speed margin ∆v=10±2%

Sea state 4-5:

Power margin ∆P=35±10%
Speed margin ∆v=17±5%

Engine de-rating factor is applied if engine is operated in climate conditions different from standard for power
declaration. Thus, 4% of engine power de-rating factor for every 10°C of temperature above 25°C and humidity
above 30% in engine room is recommended. For tropical conditions de-rating can comprise 10% in total of nominal
power specified by engine manufacturer. Negligence of this factor can cause under delivery of speed by 2…3 knots
in tropics.

Our recommendation is also to include 5% for margin for performance prediction method error; can be reduced if
similar craft was built and tested.

Estimate of operational power demand PSX on partial RPM can be done using approximate formula:
 PSX = 0.0000437 × PS X n

where PS – installed power; X – operational RPM, % of maximum; n – power exponent, n=2.2 for propellers; n=2.5
for surface drives; n=3.0 for jet drives [2]. It should be noted that in most of engine specifications power
consumption curve is presented for displacement craft (with power exponent P~X3) and thus cannot be used for
planing boats. Operational power demand is used to evaluate performance and range at cruising speed.

Figure 1 – 12.7m powerboat design

Aluminum patrol/rescue boat for coastal areas. Main particulars: maximum length Lm=12.73m; length of hull
LH=11.00m; length of waterline LWL=10.06m; maximum beam Bm=3.96m; beam of hull BH=3.25m; beam at
waterline BWL=3.12m; beam of chine BC=3.08m; midship depth D=1.78m; canoe body draft TC=0.80m; maximum
draft Tm=0.80m; air draught HA=3.81m; light craft displacement MLCC=8200kg; loaded craft displacement
MLDC=12400kg; immersion q=264.9kg; engines – 2x450h.p; maximum design speed (loaded craft) vS=34kts; fuel –
3500L; water – 200L; waste – 100L; transom deadrise β =19deg; coefficients CB=0.464; CM=0.631; CWP=0.802;
CP=0.643; LCB=12%; C∆=0.411; cerw/personnel – 10; classification – DNV HSLC.

Range and endurance

Range of craft r, in nM, is calculated based on fuel consumption data, available quantity of fuel and speed:

514v S M F
r=
q F PSX k F

where vS – speed of craft, kts; MF – mass of fuel, kg; qF – specific fuel consumption, g/h.p./h; PSX – operational
power at given RPM, h.p.; kF – fuel stores coefficient, kF=1.05…1.10. In tender conditions, endurance is often
specified for particular speed, though optimum speed can be defined during design process; many of planing craft
possess two peaks of fuel efficiency enabling fuel efficient operation at higher speeds.

Seakeeping

Functioning of planing craft at high speeds on seaway is significantly affected by loads caused by vertical
accelerations; those loads limit functionality of equipment and physical conditions of people. Say, for contemporary
high-speed passenger craft designs peak loads on structure due to vertical accelerations can comprise 2g; for
pleasure craft – 3…4g; for patrol and special craft – up to 6…8g. Application of contemporary materials and
equipment used to improve technical elements of craft, but people are still subject to unfavorable accelerations.
Special design measures should be taken to size the craft properly, limit the operational speed/seastate or provide
means to minimize harmful effect of shock loads.
Evaluation of accelerations on planing craft can be made using Savitsky-Brown formula [10]; accuracy is about
20…30%:

2
a CG H τ  β   vS  L
= 0.0104  1 / 3 + 0.084  1.67 − 5  ×  
g  BC 4 30   3.28 L  BC C ∆

where aCG/g is average impact acceleration at center of gravity related to gravity acceleration g; H1/3 – significant
wave height, m; τ - trim angle, taken τ=4° for preliminary estimates; BC – beam of chine, m; L – length of craft, m;
vS – speed of craft, kts; β5 - deadrise at half of waterline length, deg; C∆ – static load factor. Acceptable upper limits
of acceleration levels [aCG/g]1/10 for 1/10th highest accelerations are:

• 0.6g - passenger craft and most of pleasure craft;

• 1.0g – special and sport craft, long term function;
• 1.5g – special craft, military and rescue personnel, short term function (1…2 hours);
• >2.0g – body supports and shock absorbing seats required

Results of measurements indicate that accelerations at bow can be 20…100% higher compared to those on CG of
craft; accelerations at stern are close to those at CG at planing speeds. Average acceleration levels aCG/g are related
to 1/10th accelerations as [aCG/g]1/10 =3.3× aCG/g [10].

Weight estimates

Reliable estimate of weights is critical at early stages of design; as well as weight control of craft during
construction is vital for successful delivery of planing craft with contract speed and other parameters. Mass of craft
at full load MLDC is defined as sum light craft condition mass MLCC and maximum total load (payload) MMTL, both are
also subdivided into weight groups:

M LDC = M LCC + M MTL = (M H + M I + M M + M SYS + M D + M EL + M G )k A k SLA +

+ (M S + M NCS + M F + M FW + M W + M CRG + M P + M L )

where MH – mass of hull structure, kg; MI – mass of interior and outfit, kg; MM – mass of machinery, kg; MSYS, MD,
MEL – mass of systems, deck and electrical equipment, kg; MG – mass of additional equipment, kg; kA – weight
margin coefficient; kSLA – service life allowance; MS – mass of safety equipment, kg; MNCS – mass of non
consumable stores, kg; MF – mass of fuel, kg; MFW – mass of fresh water, kg; MW – mass of waste kg; MCRG – mass
of cargo, kg; MP – mass of crew and passengers, kg; ML – mass of other liquids, kg;. For most of planing craft mass
of payload MMTL comprises 15…25% of full load displacement MLDC.

Light craft mass components

Approaches to structural mass MH estimates described in [11,14] are based using equipment number and area of hull
surface for weight estimates. Meanwhile, for planing craft weight of structure is strongly affected by the following
factors:

• Type of hull material – aluminum, composite sandwich or single skin, with variety of construction
solutions;
• Architecture of superstructures and interior moldings that are difficulty to classify;
• Acceleration factor depending on speed and seastate; say, changing design acceleration level from 2.0 to
5.0g will cause 35% increase of weight for FRP hull moulding;
• Rules/standards and design categories applied.

These factors cause high discrepancy in weights of unit of structure that might not allow presenting it in theoretical
form without detailed calculations of scantlings. Preliminary estimate of hull structural mass can be made using
structural mass factor mH referred to cubic number LHBHD:
 M H = k Q m H LH B H D

where kQ – coefficient of superstructures; kQ=0.9…1.4; LH, BH, D – length, beam and depth of hull, m.

Following recommendations of mass factors mH, kg/m3 can be given:

• 20…40 kg/m3 - composite sandwich structures

• 40…55 kg/m3 - single-skin composite structures
• 35…60 kg/m3 - aluminum structures

Mass of interior and outfit MI can be estimated using cubic number and interior mass factor mI:

M I = mI ⋅ LH BH D

For different types of craft following interior mass factors mI, kg/m3 can be used:

• 18…25 kg/m3 - motor yachts with relatively heavy luxury interiors;

• 7…20 kg/m3 - light passenger and pleasure craft;
• 5…12 kg/m3 - patrol and special craft;
• 5…10 kg/m3 - open boats and day cruisers.

Mass of machinery equipment MM is defined from mass of main propulsion engines with percentage added for other
machinery items. In [11,14] different types of formulas are recommended, most of them are using horsepower PS0.7
as basis for engine mass estimate. For engines used on small craft, very high discrepancy in engine weights can be
noted. At present model, it was decided to use following formula for light-duty marine engines in power range
PS=200…4000 h.p.:

M M = k M k D mE ⋅ PS

where mE – engine mass factor, kg/h.p.; kD – drive type coefficient; kМ – machinery equipment mass coefficient.

Engine mass factors mE, kg/h.p. are:

• 1.6…1.9 – diesel engines;

• 1.3…1.5 – gasoline engines;

Drive type coefficients kD for widespread drive types:

• 1.0 - shaft drives

• 0.9 - sterndrives;
• 1.3 - jet drives;

Machinery equipment mass coefficient is used to specify engine room items independent of drives and comprises
kМ=1.35…1.70 with average numbers 1.60 for inboard installations.

Total mass of deck equipment, systems and electrical equipment MSYS, MD, MEL, kg can be evaluated as:

M SYS = mSYS ⋅ LH
2.7
; M D = mD ⋅ LH 2.7 ; M EL = mEL ⋅ LH 2.7

where mSYS, mD, mEL – mass factor for systems and equipment; for first estimates there factors can be taken 0.3...0.5.

Mass of additional equipment mG is taken directly form design requirements and covers such items as inflatable tube
or fendering, tenders, cranes, ballistic protection, etc.

Weight margin coefficient is taken kA=1.05…1.10, with higher values at early design stages. Service life allowance
kSLA covers later additions in equipment and weights and is important for special craft; it can be taken 0.5% per year
of expected service life of boat and might be slightly higher for composite craft.
Payload mass components
Mass of fuel MF is taken to satisfy required range of craft. For pleasure craft range is often not specified; in such
cases fuel capacity can be assumed mF=1.7…2.5L/h.p. for diesel engines and mF=1.3…2.5L/h.p. for gasoline
engines. For short-range pleasure craft those numbers tend to be lower; for patrol and commercial craft those might
higher.

Number of crew, passengers and personnel is specified in design requirements and defines corresponding mass MP.
Average mass of person on board is taken as:

• 75kg - for passengers without luggage and on pleasure craft;

• 100kg – passenger with luggage, diver with equipment;
• 120kg - for special personnel with ammunition;

Mass of tankage such as water MFW and waste MW can be taken 10…20L and 5…20L per person per day
respectively; sanitary requirements [9] might apply especially on commercial craft, though they are not always
feasible on smaller boats. Mass of cargo MCRG and liquids ML are estimated directly from design requirements. Mass
of safety equipment MS and mass on non-consumable stores MNCS are introduced to provide consistency with ISO
Small Craft group of standards requiring these items included in minimum operational condition mass MMOC.

Figure 2 – Sample analysis results for planing boat design

Tender conditions usually specify range of boat lengths with requirements for speed and operational seastate.
Sample presented is study of construction cost combined with speed and size of craft that is a typical task of
analysis. Acceptable limits of vertical accelerations for crews/personnel without use of shock absorbing seats and
other means of protection [aCG/g]1/10=1.5 for Sea States 2 and 3 are below the curves.
Costs

Construction cost of boat is estimated using cost factors based on mass of components; for very preliminary
estimates total cost is subdivided into cost of structure, interior and outfit, machinery and equipment (see Table 1).
Those factors often depend of particular builder; though such estimates proved to be efficient tool at early stages of
design with 20…30% accuracy. Thought cost estimates are very rough they might provide very useful guidelines for
effect of each particular factor such as dimensions and speed on cost of craft.

Results

Parametric model described above is realized in form of calculation spreadsheet. In Table 1 the sample is presented
for design analysis of 12.7m rescue boat (Fig.1). The analysis is based on matching equations of masses and hull
volumes. Other factors such as speed, acceptance of acceleration level, range, cost are analyzed and compared with
design requirements. This approach allows express analysis of design options and design optimization at early
design stages. Some results of combined analysis of cost and size for boats in range of 13…17m in length are
presented on Fig.2.

Conclusions

Parametric method discussed was used by AMD for design and analysis of number of craft intended for pleasure,
special and commercial applications. Those craft proved to be efficient, practical and commercially successful
models. Another important application of described parametric method is feasibility check for design proposals. It is
common that in conditions of high competition some suppliers would provide unrealistic numbers regarding cost,
speed, etc.; those can be easily verified using approaches described above. On other side, those involved in
development of tender specifications might find it useful as preliminary analysis tool.

References

1. Almeter J.M. Resistance predictions of planning hulls: state of the art// Marine Technology, Vol.30, No.4, 1993.
2. Blount D.L., Bartee R.J. Design of Propulsion Systems for High Speed Craft// Marine Technology, Vol.34,
No.4, 1997.
3. Egorov I.T., Bunkov M.M., Sadovnikov Yu.M. Performance and seakeeping of planing craft. Sudostroenie,
1978 (in Russian)
4. International Code of Safety for High Speed Craft (2000 HSC Code) – IMO, 2008 Edition
5. Lewandowski E.M. The Dynamics of Marine Craft. World Scientific Publishing, 2004.
6. Nazarov A. Parametric Approach for Design and Analysis of Planing Craft // International Conference on Ship
and Offshore Technology, Kharagpur, India, 2011.
7. Nazarov A. Stability and Safety Aspects of Small Planing Craft. // High Performance Marine Vehicles
Conference (HPMV2005), Shanghai, China, 2005.
8. Robinson J. Performance Prediction of Chine and Round Bilge Hull Forms//Hydrodynamics of High Speed
Craft, London, 1999.
9. Sanitary Norms and Regulations – Water Transport. 2009 (in Russian)
10. Savitsky D., Koelbel J.G Seakeeping of Hard Chine Planing Hulls//SNAME, SC1, June 1993.
11. Ship Design and Construction. Vol. 1-2, SNAME 2003.
12. Thsarev B.A. Optimisation in Design of High Speed Craft. LKI, 1988 (in Russian)
13. Vaganov A.M. Design of High Speed Craft. Sudostroenie, 1978. (in Russian)
14. Watson D.G.M. Practical Ship Design. Elsevier, 1998, 2002.