See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333224634

Comparison between the Dynamic Behavior of the Non-stepped and Double-

stepped Planing Hulls in Rough Water: A Numerical Study

Article  in  Journal of Ship Production and Design · May 2019

DOI: 10.5957/JSPD.11170053

CITATIONS READS

11 568

3 authors:

Arman Esfandiari Sasan Tavakoli

Persian Gulf University University of Melbourne
3 PUBLICATIONS   41 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   707 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abbas Dashtimanesh
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
79 PUBLICATIONS   976 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development a predictive model for acceleration of high speed crafts View project

Hydroelastic modeling of asymmetric wedge section body during oblique impact to water View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sasan Tavakoli on 17 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Ship Production and Design, Vol. 00, No. 0, Month 2019, pp. 1–15
http://dx.doi.org/10.5957/JSPD.11170053

Comparison between the Dynamic Behavior of the Non-stepped and

Double-stepped Planing Hulls in Rough Water: A Numerical Study

Arman Esfandiari,* Sasan Tavakoli,† and Abbas Dashtimanesh*

*Engineering Department, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran
†
Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Reducing vertical motions of high-speed planing hulls in rough water is one of the most
important factors that help a boat to become more operable, and will benefit the
structure of the boat and the crew on board. In the recent decade, stepped planing hulls
have been investigated with emphasis on their better performance in calm water than
that of non-stepped planing hulls. However, there are still doubts about their perfor-
mance in rough water. In this study, we investigate this problem by providing numerical
simulations for motions of a double-stepped and a non-stepped planing hull in a vertical
plane when they encounter head waves. The problem will be solved using the finite
volume method and volume of fluid method. To this end, a numerical computational
fluid dynamics code (STAR-CCM1) has been used. Accuracy of the numerical sim-
ulations is evaluated by comparing their outcome with available experimental data. The
dynamic response of the investigated hulls has been numerically modeled for two
different wave lengths, one of which is smaller than the boat length and the other which
is larger than the boat length. Using the numerical simulations, heave and pitch motions
as well as vertical acceleration are found. It has been found that at wave lengths larger
than the boat length, heave amplitude decreases by 10–40% when two steps are added
to the bottom of a vessel. It has also been observed that pitch of a planing hull is reduced
by 18–32% in the presence of the two steps on its bottom. Finally, it has been observed
that for wave lengths larger than the boat length, the maximum vertical acceleration
decreases by a gravitational acceleration of about .2–.7.

Keywords: numerical simulation; stepped hulls; planing boats; regular wave; heave
and pitch motions

1. Introduction
In recent years, high-speed planing hulls with one or two steps have
been increasingly used for different purposes, such as sport or recreational
use (Sverchkov 2010). Better performance in calm water has led naval
architects to design these vessels for such aims, and new stepped planing
hull series have been introduced (Becker et al. 2008; Lee et al. 2014).
However, there are concerns about their performance in waves and also
their stability in different planes (Morabito & Pavkov 2014; Morabito
et al. 2014). Thus, it should be determined whether a stepped planing boat
Manuscript received by JSPD Committee September 13, 2018; accepted April
25, 2019.
Corresponding author: Abbas Dashtimanesh, a.dashtimanesh@pgu.ac.ir
with acceptable and good performance in calm water is a good performer
in waves. Most studies on the hydrodynamics of stepped planing hulls
stress on their performance in calm water and have shown positive
influence of adding one or even two steps on the bottom of planing hulls
(Savitsky & Morabito 2010; Garland & Maki 2012). The aims of this
study were to provide a numerical method for solving dynamic motions
of a double-stepped planing hull and compare the results with those of a
non-stepped planing hull to gain more insight regarding the dynamic
response of planing hulls equipped with steps on their bottom.
Since 1950, modeling and prediction of the motion of floating
structures in rough sea through different numerical, experimental, or
theoretical methods have increased significantly. Such progresses
assure us that it is possible to model dynamic motions of planing
vessels in regular waves and dynamics of stepped planing hulls.

MONTH 2019 2158-2866/19/nnnnnn-0001$00.00/0 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION AND DESIGN 1

 The dynamic response of a marine vehicle in waves has a strong
influence on the safety of passengers and cargo, or the comfort of
passengers and crew (Journee & Jakob 2002). Reducing the motion
of the vessels, especially their vertical acceleration, can increase the
ability of the vessels to operate well. For planing hulls, concerns
about this issue increase because large slamming forces result in
waves (Faltinsen 2000; Abrate 2013) that can damage the bottom of
the vessel, or cause trouble for the health of the crew, both
physically and mentally (Grenestedt 2013; Olausson & Garme
2015; De Alwis et al. 2016; Martire et al. 2017). Lueders (1959)
reported vertical acceleration and pitch amplitude of two different
kinds of planing hulls: hard-chine boat and round-bottom boat.
Savitsky and Brown (1976) presented empirical relations and
graphs for added resistance and vertical acceleration of non-stepped
planing hulls. Taking advantage of some previous experiments,
Savitksy (1968) presented a discussion on motion of planing hulls
in waves and commented that when the wave length becomes larger
than the boat length, the added resistance increment becomes
significant. Also, he mentioned that as the wave length becomes
larger than the length of the boat, heave and pitch amplitudes in-
crease. Later, Grigoropoulos and Loukasis (1995) showed that if the
wave length increases, its effects on the motion of the boat decrease.
Because all of these methods were restricted and could not bring
any certain result for a specific boat, some researchers turned to
mathematical approaches and developed models for motion pre-
diction of planing hulls. Zarnick (1978, 1979) developed a math-
ematical model based on the 2DþT theory, in which he used
momentum variation of a wedge section body as it enters water. The
method has been further developed by the next generation of re-
searchers (Akers 1999; Garme & Rosen 2003; van Deyzen 2008)
and was extended for heave, pitch, and roll motions in waves
(Sebastiani et al. 2008; Ghadimi et al. 2013; Tavakoli et al. 2015;
Ghadimi et al. 2016a, 2016b; Ghadimi et al. 2017; Tavakoli et al.
2017). These methods have shown good ability in modeling of
planing hulls in waves and have been used for modeling yawed
conditions (Morabito 2015; Tavakoli et al. 2018a; Tavakoli &
Dashtimanesh 2017). In cases where researchers attempted to
model stepped planing hulls mathematically, they used empirical
equations (Svahn 2009; Danielsson & Strømquist 2012; Loni et al.
2013; Dashtimanesh et al. 2016, 2017b) and attempted to further
develop Savitsky’s method (1964). But the point here is that
Savitsky’s method (1964) is not capable of being extended for
modeling of motions in waves, and has only been used for de-
termination of hydrodynamic coefficients of planing hulls (Faltinsen
2005; Tavakoli et al. 2018b), where it has been seen that vertical
coefficients are not found accurately.
As designers and engineers faced problems in prediction of
performance of stepped planing hulls in smooth water and rough
water, they turned to numerical methods. Such methods, however,
have been used for modeling of non-stepped planing hulls for
more than a decade and results have shown good accuracy
(Azcueta 2003; Caponnetto 2004; Brizzolara & Serra 2007;
Kohansal & Ghassemi 2008; Dashtimanesh & Ghadimi 2013;
Mousaviraad et al. 2015). In recent years, new numerical methods
have been used to model the steady behavior of one-stepped
planing hulls (Lotfi et al. 2015; Veisi et al. 2015; Bakhtiari et al.
2016; De Marco et al. 2017). Recently, Dashtimanesh et al.
(2017a) numerically simulated the steady motion of a double-
stepped planing hull in smooth water by using a finite volume
method (FVM) and showed that their numerical simulation was
2 MONTH 2019
accurate. Their method was able to predict the dynamic equi-
librium of a planing hull, and also presented the free surface
around the vessel and pressure distribution over its bottom. The
good accuracy of CFD codes in modeling of planing hull motion
in conjunction with previous progresses in modeling calm water
behavior of double-stepped planing hulls shows that the earlier
question regarding the difference between the performance of
double-stepped and non-stepped planing hulls can be resolved.
In this study, numerical methods will be used to solve the dy-
namic response of a double-stepped planing hull in water waves.
This double-stepped planing hull was previously introduced by
Taunton et al. (2010, 2011), who measured its performance in calm
water and irregular waves. This planing model is exactly similar to
the non-stepped model which was also designed and tested by
Taunton et al. (2010, 2011). The point that distinguishes these hulls
from each other is the presence of two steps on the bottom of the
double-stepped vessel. The non-stepped hull will be numerically
modeled to provide a comparison between performances of both
hulls. The numerical method will solve the viscous equation by
using the FVM. Also, because the domain contains two different
phases, air and water, a volume of fluid (VOF) method will be used.
Dynamic rigid body equations will be implemented to find the time
histories of heave and pitch motions of the vessels.
This article is organized as follows. In Section 2, governing
equations for the problem will be presented for the fluid, VOF, and
rigid body. Also, assumptions for a rough water condition will be
outlined. Section 3 deals with the numerical simulation of the
problem. The method for solving the fluid dynamics problem and
the approach for predicting the dynamic response of the boat will be
explained. In Section 4, the accuracy of the method will be in-
vestigated and evaluated. After presenting the validations, the main
results will be reported in Section 5. These results contain the time
response of heave, pitch, and vertical acceleration of the double-
stepped and non-stepped planing hulls in waves with different wave
lengths. Also, the pressure distribution over the bottom of the
double-stepped planing hull will be shown and discussed for dif-
ferent time steps. In Section 6, conclusions of the study are sum-
marized and a framework of future plans is described.
2. Governing equations
The basic equations proposed in the fluid flow phenomena are the
Navier–Stokes equations. These equations govern the fluid flow
problems and include the continuity equation and the momentum
equations. The tensor form of these equations can be written as
follows (Durbin 2000):
∂ui
¼0 i ¼ 1; 2; 3; (1)
∂t


∂ui ∂ ui uj 1 ∂p ∂uj
þ ¼ þv ; (2)
∂t ∂xj ρ ∂xj ∂xj ∂xi
where ρ, p, u and v are the fluid density, pressure, velocity, and
kinematic viscosity, respectively. Navier–Stokes equations can be
rewritten using Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) for-
mulation in which the expanded form of the momentum equation is
written as follows, where a prime superscript denotes an unsteady
fluctuation,
JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION AND DESIGN
 ∂
ui ∂u0i ∂
uj ∂

ui
ui u0j ∂u0i u0j ∂u0i ci ¼ Vi =V ; (10)
þ þ þ þ þ ¼
∂t ∂t ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj and
    (3)
1 ∂p0 1 ∂

p0 ∂ ∂
ui ∂ ∂u0i Vair Vwater
  þv þv ; cair þ cwater ¼ þ ¼ 1: (11)
ρ ∂xi ρ ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj V V
and after time averaging, it yields In the aforementioned equations, i refers to the i-th fluid. Here, we
 
∂
ui ∂
ui

uj 1 ∂

p ∂ ∂
ui ∂u0i u0j only assume different fluids, including air and water. ci stands for
þ ¼ þv   (4) volume fraction of the fluid. In addition, V is the volume of a cell
∂t ∂xj ρ ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj
and Vi is the occupied volume by the fluid.

2.1. k–e turbulence model 2.3. Rigid body dynamics

The standard k–e turbulence model is used to solve the turbulent The forces and moments acting on the double-stepped planing
flow regime in this study. In this model, k denotes the turbu- hull, as a rigid body, are computed by STAR-CCMþ, and the heave
lent kinetic energy and e refers to the dissipation rate of the turbulent and pitch motions of the hull in response to various acting forces and
kinetic energy. Improving the mixing length model is the main moments are simulated. Motion equations used to model the
objective of the k–e model described by Launder and Sharma planing hull behavior are as follows (Wittenburg 2013):
(1974), Caponnetto (2004), and Bakhtiari et al. (2016), and many →
.
F ¼ d B dt; (12)
other researchers who have used this model and achieved accurate
results.
Generally, the two variables are written as follows (Boussinesq →
.
1877): P ¼ d K dt; (13)
→ →
1 0 0 where FðFX ; FY ; FZ Þ is the→ force and PðMx ; My ; M→z Þ is the torque



k¼ u u; (5)
2 i i about the center of gravity. B is the momentum and K is the moment
of inertia of the hull around the center of gravity.
 
μ 0 0 If the coordinate system is located on ground surface, then the
e¼ u


u ; (6) equations will be as follows:
ρ i; j i; j
→  → →
where u0 is the largest scale of eddy velocity (eddy is the swirling F ¼ dB~ dt þ Ω  B; (14)
of a fluid and the reverse current created when the fluid is in a
turbulent flow regime). Turbulence causes the formation of eddies →  → → → →
~ dt þ Ω  K þ V  B;
P ¼ dK (15)
of many different length scales. Most of the kinetic energy of the
→ →
turbulent motion is contained in the large-scale structures. The where Ωðϕ; _ θ;_ ψÞ
_ is the rotational speed and V ðx; _ y;
_ zÞ
_ is the ve-
energy cascades from these large-scale structures to smaller scale locity of center of mass.
structures by an inertial and essentially inviscid mechanism. This By considering that boat has oscillations only in the heave and pitch
process continues, creating smaller and smaller structures, which directions, a body frame is attached to its center of gravity (COG) and
produces a hierarchy of eddies. Eventually, this process creates the governing equation on the vessel can be written as follows:
structures that are small enough that molecular diffusion becomes X
important and viscous dissipation of energy finally takes place, and M z€¼ Fz ¼ FzW þ FzHD ; (16)
turbulent viscosity is obtained as follows:
X
k2 I €θ ¼ My ¼ MyW þ MyHD ; (17)
μi ¼ Cμ ρ (7)
e
where I is the mass moment of inertia. In the aforementioned
in which Cμ is constant. equation, forces and moments with superscripts W and HD refer to
loads produced by waves and hydrodynamic pressure, respectively.
2.2. VOF method
In this study, the VOF method is used to calculate the interface 2.4. Regular wave
between water and air. The density and viscosity equations are Regular waves are the first-order waves that are based on the
defined as follows (Hirt & Nichols 1981): approximation of the Stokes wave theory. By using this approxi-
X mation, it is possible to generate a harmonic wave. The equation for
μ¼ μ i ci ; (8)
i
wave horizontal velocity is (ITTC 2011)

X vh ¼ aωcosðKx  ωtÞekz : (18)

ρ¼ ρi ci ; (9)
i
The equation for vertical velocity is also (ITTC 2011)

where ci is given as vv ¼ aωsinðKx  ωtÞekz : (19)

MONTH 2019 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION AND DESIGN 3

The equation for surface elevation is The size of the computational domain is chosen according to the
ITTC recommendations (2011). The computational domain and its
η ¼ a cosðKx  ωtÞ; (20)
dimensions and boundary conditions are illustrated in Fig. 3 in
where a is the wave amplitude, ω is the wave frequency, K is the which the middle plane is the symmetry boundary, the back plane is
wave number, and z is the vertical distance from the mean water the pressure outlet, and the other planes are the velocity inlet. The
level. considered computational domain is identical in all cases of
simulations.
Three different mesh types are chosen to discretize the com-
3. Numerical solution putational domain and considered hulls. The first one is the surface
remesher, which is always required for geometries that have been
Based on the best knowledge of current authors, there is no imported from CAD models. To improve the overall quality of an
numerical study in the literature to predict the dynamic behavior of existing surface and optimize it for the volume mesh models, a
double-stepped planing hulls in regular waves. Therefore, in this surface remesher can be used. The second mesh is the prism layer
study, a two-stepped model (C2) and a non-stepped model (C) mesher, which can be used in conjunction with the surface remesher
planing hull, which have experimentally been tested by Taunton to provide layers of prism cells next to the wall. The prism layer
et al. (2010) in calm water, are numerically simulated in regular mesher is essential for turbulent flows. Implementation of the prism
waves, and the dynamic characteristics of the models C2 and C are layer mesh resolves the viscous sublayer directly if the turbulence
compared against each other. model supports it (low yþ). Finally, to improve the quality of
These two models are typical of high-speed interceptor craft and meshes in the water surface, a trimmer mesh is used. This mesh is
race boats which have the same dimensions, except that the model efficient for filling large volumes to model the interface of water and
C2 has two steps with .01 m height. Model length is 2 m with an L/B air. Table 2 shows the exact values used for generating mesh. The
ratio of 4.3 and deadrise angle of 22.5°. Details of the models are generated mesh along the computational domain is shown in Fig. 4.
presented in Table 1 and the sketches of models C and C2 are shown Types of mesh used in both models C and C2 are similar but differ
in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively. in the number of computational cells. The number of cells adopted
for the model C is 155,478, but the number of cells in model C2 is
852,145. The mesh number used for model C2 has a significant
increase against the other model to be able to model the fluid flows
Table 1 Principal characteristics of models C and C2 (Taunton et al.
2010)
over the steps accurately. It is essential to use very small meshes
near the steps. Thus, the number of meshes is increased in this case.
Figure 5 shows a side view of mesh distribution around model C,
Parameter Value
and Fig. 6 shows the mesh distribution around model C2 and near
Length overall (m) 2 the steps.
Beam (m) .46 As mentioned previously, the mesh morphing approach is used to
Height (m) .25 solve the boat motions in regular waves. By using this method, the
Displaced weight (N) 243.4
generated meshes move around the hull to keep the physical
Height of steps for C2 (m) .01
continuity of the body and fluid. Table 3 shows the numerical
Draft (m) .09
Deadrise angle (degree) 22.5 features in the current study: the time step size to achieve con-
vergence is .0005 seconds. Moreover, a release time, which is the

Fig. 1 Body profile of model C (Taunton et al. 2010)

Fig. 2 Body profile of model C2 (Taunton et al. 2010)

4 MONTH 2019 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION AND DESIGN

 initial time before starting the body motions, is considered in the
present study. By considering the release time, a real fluid flow can
form around the hull before its motions begin. The release time
depends on the mesh size. Ramp time is a parameter that facilitates a
more robust solution by reducing oscillations due to rapid change.
At the release time, although the hull has no motion, forces and
moments are applied to the body and can cause a rapid change.
Applying a ramp time causes the forces and moments to increase
proportionally across the ramp interval. In this study, the release
time and ramp time are chosen as 0.3 seconds and 1 second, re-
spectively (Table 3).

4. Validation

Before presenting the results of numerical simulations for non-

stepped and two-stepped planing hulls in regular waves, the validity
of the numerical setup should be evaluated. Because there are no
Fig. 3 Computational domain and boundary conditions experimental results related to two-stepped hull motion in regular
waves, the numerical model will be verified with the experimental
Table 2 Exact detail of mesh values for models C and C2 results of Taunton et al. (2010) in calm water for the non-stepped
model (C) and the two-stepped model (C2).
.35 Base size The first part of the validation is performed for model C at nine
5000% Maximum cell size > relative size
different Froude numbers, from 2.39 to 7.12. Various hydrody-
6 Number of prism layers namic characteristics, such as resistance, lift, dynamic trim angle,
.002 Prism layer thickness > relative size and wetted surface, are compared against experimental data. Details
1.8 Surface growth rate of the simulation conditions for model C in calm water are shown in
3% Surface size > relative minimum size Table 4.
50% Surface size > relative target size These simulations are performed for all velocities, and the values
Slow Template growth rate of resistance, lift, dynamic trim angle, and wetted surface at the
2.75% Trimmer size equilibrium position are compared with experimental values. To
show that the equilibrium condition in the heave direction is pre-
cisely satisfied for model C, the numerical lift force is compared
with the weight of the hull at the velocities considered. As Fig. 7
shows, the average error at all simulations for lift forces is close to
.32%.
The nondimensional resistance is compared with experimental
measurements in Fig. 8. It is clear that the numerical results are in
very good agreement with experimental data for all velocities. The
root mean square (RMS) of computational error is 3.82%, which
indicates the accuracy of numerical solutions.
It is well known that the trim angle of the planing hulls decreases
with increasing boat velocity. This result is also obtained by the
numerical simulations and is shown in Fig. 9; there is good
agreement between the computed trim angles and experimental
Fig. 4 Mesh distribution along the computational domain results. The RMS error for all cases is 6.86%, which is reasonable.

Fig. 5 Mesh distribution around model C

MONTH 2019 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION AND DESIGN 5

 Fig. 6 Mesh distribution around model C2

Table 3 Numerical characteristics used in this study By referring to Dashtimanesh et al. (2017a), a comparison is
performed between the computed lift and the weight of model C2. It is
Analysis type Unsteady state observed that the RMS error is only .46%. Therefore, the equilibrium
DOF Pitch and heave
condition of model C2 in heave has been satisfied, accurately. Also,
Motion DFBI morphing the experimental results for resistance values of model C2 show that
Time step (seconds) .0005 two-stepped planing hulls have low resistance than non-stepped
Release time (seconds) 0.3 planing hulls, especially at high velocity. The numerical results
Ramp time (seconds) 1 follow this trend as Dashtimanesh et al. (2017a) have demonstrated
that there is an excellent agreement between the numerical simula-
tions and experimental data at all considered velocities. The RMS
Table 4 Details of simulations in calm water for model C error is 4.86%. On the other hand, the computed dynamic trim angle
for model C2 is compared against the experimental data, and it was
Case number Velocity (m/sec) FrV Re [106] observed that the RMS error is 8.85% for all considered velocities.
However, as shown in Dashtimanesh et al. (2017a), the trend of
1 4.05 2.39 4.64 the numerical results for wetted surface differs from the experi-
2 5.09 3.01 5.0
mental data. There is no justification by Taunton et al. (2010) on
3 6.23 3.68 5.79
4 7.11 4.20 6.37
why this oscillatory behavior is observed in their results. It is well
5 8.13 4.81 7.10 known that by increasing the velocity, the wetted surface will
6 9.21 5.44 7.56 decrease. Generally, the RMS error for wetted surface computation
7 10.10 5.97 8.06 is 15.52%, which may be acceptable.
8 11.13 6.58 9.01 As mentioned previously, a grid uncertainty analysis had also
9 12.05 7.12 9.48 been performed by Dashtimanesh et al. (2017a) for model C2 to
investigate the effect of mesh size on the presented solution at the
velocity of 10.13 m/sec. For this purpose, four different meshes,
Wetted surface is the other important parameter that can be used including case A: 495,156 cells, case B: 685,215 cells, case C:
for validation. Taunton et al. (2010) measured the wetted area of 852,145 cells, and case D: 1,025,455 cells, were chosen. The
model C, and from Fig. 10, it is observed that there is a good nondimensional resistances for each mesh size were numerically
agreement between numerical and experimental findings, with only computed and compared against the experimental data. It was
8.45% RMS error. observed that the mesh size corresponding with case C is sufficient
The second phase of validation is related to model C2 at nine for the present study.
different Froude numbers, from 2.4 to 7.12. Computed hydrodynamic
features, such as hull resistance, lift, trim angle, and wetted area, are 5. Results for hull motions
compared against experimental data. Details of calm water simulations
for model C2 are shown in Table 5. It should be noted that these results In the previous section, motions of non-stepped and two-stepped
have previously been presented by Dashtimanesh et al. (2017a) and are planing vessels in calm water were considered and the numerical
repeated here to verify that the presented numerical setup is valid and setup was validated. Therefore, it is now possible to extend the
can be used for simulation of two-stepped hulls in regular waves. studies to the motion simulation of models C and C2 in regular
Moreover, a detailed study on yþ and grid independence analysis has waves. For this purpose, various wave conditions are chosen and the
been performed by Dashtimanesh et al. (2017a), which proves that the dynamic behaviors of the vessels in regular waves are computed.
current numerical solution is robust and efficient. Simulations are performed for four different regular waves according

6 MONTH 2019 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION AND DESIGN

 Fig. 7 Comparison of computed lift with boat’s weight for model C

Fig. 8 Comparison of obtained resistance with experimental data for model C

Fig. 9 Comparison of numerical trim with experimental data for model C

MONTH 2019 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION AND DESIGN 7

 Fig. 10 Comparison of numerical and experimental measurements of wetted surface for model C

Table 5 Details of simulations in calm water for model C2 should be mentioned that time responses at other Froude numbers
have also been simulated and showed similar harmonic behavior to
Case number Velocity (m/sec) FrV Re ½  106  those at Froude number 4.81.
1 4.05 2.4 4.81
In these two figures, vertical axis refers to nondimensional heave
2 5.10 3.01 5.48 motion, normalized by A, and horizontal axis denotes non-
3 6.25 3.69 6.17 dimensional time, normalized by T. First, it can be seen that waves 2
4 7.11 4.20 6.66 and 4 lead to larger values of heave amplitudes for both vessels. As
5 8.13 4.81 7.39 was seen earlier in Table 2, two different frequencies have been
6 9.18 5.43 8.18 taken into account, including angular frequencies 4.18 and 6.32
7 10.13 5.99 8.78 which associate to periods of 1 and 1.5 seconds, respectively. The
8 11.13 6.58 9.14 former frequency is close to the natural frequency of the boat, and
9 12.05 7.12 10.17 thus, it is expected that larger motions occur at this frequency. The
other frequency is far larger than the natural frequency, and
therefore, the amplitude of the boat heave motion becomes smaller.
to Table 6. For each wave condition, four Froude numbers of 2.4, In addition to this point, it is evident that the boat is oscillating in the
3.69, 4.81, and 5.99 are investigated to determine the effects of vertical direction around a nonzero value. The presence of hy-
velocity on the dynamic behavior of the hulls. It should be noticed that drodynamic pressure at the bottom of the boat accounts for this. The
because of the lack of computational resource, only two frequencies mean displacement of the boat is identified as its sinkage. Time
based on the dominant wave period of Persian Gulf are considered. history of the heave motion for both cases shows that all four Froude
In the next part, heave, pitch, and vertical acceleration of the non- numbers have approximately similar values, whereas the mean
stepped and two-stepped planing hulls for various regular waves and value of heave at larger frequency slightly decreases. Such behavior
different velocities are discussed and compared against each other. has been previously discussed by Tavakoli et al. (2017) and Hicks
et al. (1995), who both described that at frequencies in the proximity
of the natural frequency, the mean value of heave increases slightly.
5.1. Heave motion Finally, a comparison between the results of models C and C2 is
In this part, the heave motion of non-stepped and two-stepped helpful in understanding the differences between heave motion
planing hulls are presented and compared. Only time responses of responses of non-stepped and stepped planing hulls in regular
heave motions of non-stepped and two-stepped vessels at Froude waves. Two considerable differences in relation to the heave motion
response of these two hulls can be seen. First, amplitude of heave
number 4.81 are presented in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12, respectively. It
motion of the non-stepped hull, model C, is larger than that of the
Table 6 Characteristics of considered regular waves stepped hull in identical situations. When a stepped planing hull
moves forward, its wetted surface is separated into different parts, at
Wave characteristics Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 each of which hydrodynamic pressure acts. That is, the boat ex-
periences three different wetted surfaces, which contributes to
Wave height (m) .05 .05 0.1 0.1 damping forces in the vertical direction. The results also suggest
Period (seconds) 1 1.5 1 1.5 that the time history of the stepped planing hull is more nonlinear
Wave length over boat length .78 1.75 .78 1.75
than that of the non-stepped hull. It was previously explained that
Wave number 4.02 1.78 4.02 1.78
three different pressure areas appear on the bottom of the stepped

8 MONTH 2019 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION AND DESIGN

hull. Compared with a non-stepped planing hull, more hydrody-
namic force and less hydrostatic pressure act on the bottom of a
stepped plaining hull. Inasmuch as the hydrodynamic force is re-
sponsible for any possible nonlinearity in the response of the
planing boat, it has greater nonlinearity. As a result, the stepped
planing hull shows more nonlinearity than the non-stepped hull.
Amplitudes of heave motion of the planing hulls at different Froude
numbers are shown in Fig. 13. The double-stepped planing hull has a
smaller amplitude of heave motion in all cases. For example, for wave
1, the steps reduce the heave motion of the vessel by about 22%, and
at wave 2, this reduction is close to 40%. The reason for this was
previously described as attributed to the presence of three different
pressure areas on the bottom of the vessel. Comparing the results of
different Froude numbers, we may infer that the amplitude of heave
motion increases with the increase in speed. Larger speed, in fact,
ensues a smaller wetted area but larger hydrodynamic pressure, which
can decrease the restoring force of the boat in the heave direction.
5.2. Pitch motion
Time histories of the pitch motion simulations at Froude number
4.81 and four different wave conditions are shown in Figs. 14 and 15.

Fig. 11 Heave motion of model C at Froude number 4.81

Fig. 12 Heave motion of model C2 at Froude number 4.81

Fig. 13 Comparison between the heave motions of the two vessels in waves

MONTH 2019 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION AND DESIGN 9

 Fig. 14 Pitch motion of model C at Froude number 4.81

Fig. 15 Pitch motion of model C2 at Froude number 4.81

Fig. 16 Comparison between the pitch motions of the two vessels in waves

Some important aspects regarding pitch motion of non-stepped and
double-stepped planing hulls can be seen in this figure. First, it can be
seen that wave 4 leads to larger values of pitch amplitude. This refers
to the fact that the period of this wave is close to the natural frequency
of the boat. Again, it can be seen that the pitch angle of both vessels
oscillates around a nonzero fixed value, which is the dynamic trim
angle of the boat. This nonzero value is larger for model C2 basically
because double-stepped planing hulls have a smaller trim angle than
non-stepped hulls. These mean values, however, differ from one wave
length to another. As was observed for the time history of heave
responses, pitch responses of double-stepped planing hulls show
more nonlinear behavior than those of non-stepped hulls. The reason
underlying this fact has been previously explained and attributed to
the higher contribution of hydrodynamic forces.
Figure 16 shows the amplitude of pitch motion of the two vessels
for various waves and Froude numbers. This figure provides some
helpful information regarding the pitch motion of planing hulls and
possible effects of the presence of two steps on the bottom of a
planing hull. It can be seen in this figure that waves 2 and 4 both
result in larger amplitude than waves 1 and 3. Such behavior was

10 MONTH 2019 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION AND DESIGN

expected because the frequency of both these waves is the natural
frequency. Moreover, the plots imply that larger speed results in
larger amplitude of the pitch motion. This was also seen for the
heave motion. As was explained for effects of speed on heave
motion, again it should be noted that at larger speed, hydrodynamic
forces become more dominant, and the consequence is smaller
values of restoring moments in the pitch direction. Thus, increased
speed results in larger pitch amplitude. The most important aim of
the current study was to find the effects of steps on the motion of the
vessel in waves. As seen in this figure, in a similar condition, model
C2, the double-stepped planing boat, has smaller values of motion
amplitude, which assures us that smaller oscillations arise in the
operation of stepped planing boats in waves. For example, for
waves 2 and 4, waves that result in very larger amplitude for the
non-stepped planing boat, model C2, motion amplitude is reduced
about 18% and 32%, respectively.
5.3. Vertical acceleration
Amplitude of vertical acceleration of planing hulls is one of the
important parameters in waves that can help engineers design safer
boats. In many planing hulls, its value may surpass g and so cause
hazards for passengers (De Alwis et al. 2017). Samples of simulated
time histories of vertical accelerations of both boats are displayed in
Figs. 17 and 18. Waves 2 and 4, as expected, result in larger values
of vertical acceleration for both vessels. It can be seen that in a
similar situation, model C2 experiences smaller values of vertical
acceleration. For instance, at wave 4, its largest vertical acceleration
Fig. 17 Vertical acceleration of model C at Froude number 4.81
Fig. 18 Vertical acceleration of model C2 at Froude number 4.81
MONTH 2019
reaches 1.1g; however, the other vessel, model C1, has a maximum
value of 1.6g. So, although a double-stepped planing hull has three
separate pressure areas, on each of which a maximum pressure acts,
it has smaller values of vertical acceleration.
Figure 19 shows the vertical acceleration amplitudes of models C
and C2 at different speeds. This figure shows that an increase in
speed increases the amplitude of vertical acceleration of the vessel.
Such behavior has been observed for the non-stepped warped
planing hull previously by Begovic et al. (2014), and it can now be
seen that such response happens also for double-stepped planing
crafts. Moreover, model C2 has smaller values of amplitude of
vertical acceleration than model C in similar waves. The vertical
acceleration of a planing hull highly depends on its mean value of
dynamic trim angle and amplitude of pitch angle. As the trim angle
and amplitude of pitch increase, it is expected that larger hydro-
dynamic forces with larger amplitude will act on the boat. As
previously seen, double-stepped planing hulls have smaller mean
value of dynamic trim angle and smaller amplitude of pitch. As a
result, a stepped planing hull may have smaller oscillations in its
vertical force and, therefore, smaller vertical acceleration. Finally,
for waves 2 and 4, which have wave lengths larger than the boat
length, larger values of vertical acceleration occur for each of these
vessels.
5.4. Pressure distribution
The pressure distributions over the bottom of a planing vessel
provide insight into the cause of its motions in waves. The pressure
JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION AND DESIGN 11
 Fig. 19 Comparison between the vertical acceleration of the two vessels in two waves
on the bottom of a double-stepped planing hull acts on three dif-
ferent areas, and it is interesting to evaluate how pressure changes in
time when a double-stepped planing boat moves forward in rough
sea. For demonstrating pressure distribution better, four different
stages are defined, and the pressure distribution is computed at each
of these stages. These four stages are illustrated in Fig. 20. The first
stage refers to the time that the wave peaks exist at the bow of the
vessel. Moving from the bow to the transom stern of the vessel,
other stages are defined. Accordingly, stage 4 is the stage at which
peak pressure has reached the transom.
The pressure distribution for model C2 at Froude number 4.81 in
wave 4 is shown in Fig. 21. Four different stages are shown in this
figure. The first stage at t ¼ 9 seconds shows when a wave peak
reaches the bow of the vessel and three different pressure areas
appear on the bottom of the boat. The maximum pressure acting on
the boat is on the aft body, which is about 3.3 kpa. On the other
surfaces, the mid-body and the aft body, also there are maximum
pressures, which is about 1.5 kpa on each. However, as the pressure
peak moves aft, the pressure distribution profile changes. The
pressure acts on areas with larger length but smaller stagnation
angle, and maximum pressure acts on the fore body of the boat.
Moreover, unlike the previous stage, large pressure values apply to
smaller areas. The maximum pressure on the bottom of the aft
planing surface is about 3.3 kpa, and its value is about 3 kpa at the
surface located between two steps. In the third stage, when the wave
crest reaches the neighborhood of the transom, maximum pressure
Fig. 20 Different stages of vessel position in waves: (A) First stage, (B) second stage, (C) third stage, and (D) fourth stage
12 MONTH 2019
on the boat is on the aft body. Its value is approximately 4.8 kpa. The
other interesting point at this stage is that the pressure area of the
boat becomes larger than that in previous stages, and also becomes
larger. In comparison with the previous stage, the aft body and mid-
body experience larger values of pressure in larger areas. Finally, it
can be observed that in the last stage, t ¼ 10.5 seconds, at which the
wave crest has reached the transom, maximum pressure occurs
behind the second step and its value is a little less than 3 kpa. Its
value on the mid-body is also about 3 kpa. On the fore body, only a
smaller area of pressure appears, where the pressure is about 1.5
kpa. As the wave crest passes from the bow to mid-body, the
maximum pressure on the fore body increases from 1.5 kpa to 7.2
kpa and the pressure of the aft body slightly increases from 3.2 kpa
to 4.8 kpa. Then, as the wave crest reaches the stern of the boat,
pressure acting on the fore body reduces and reaches 1.5 kpa.
During this time, pressure on the aft body decreases.
5.5. Volume fraction of fluid
The wetted surface of model C2 at different stages in wave 4 at
Froude number 4.81 is shown in Fig. 22. As can be seen in this
figure, at the first and fourth stages, when the wave crest drenches
the bow and stern of the craft, smaller wetted areas can be seen on
the fore body. However, at the stages when the wave crest is in the
proximity of the mid-body, the wetted surface of the fore body is
larger.
JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION AND DESIGN
 Fig. 21 Pressure distribution of model C2 in wave 4 with Froude number 4.81

Fig. 22 Volume fraction of water of model C2 in wave 4 with Froude number 4.81

6. Conclusions
In this study, numerical simulations for dynamic responses of a
non-stepped and a two-stepped planing vessel in regular waves
were presented. The numerical methods solved the dynamic rigid
body equations of a planing vessel. Hydrodynamic forces and
moments that act on the boats were computed by solving RANS
equations. The fluid dynamic computations were performed by
using the FVM. The free surface of the water was computed by
using the VOF method. To validate the numerical model, computed
results for calm water were compared against previous experimental
results. The comparisons show that the numerical method is ac-
ceptable and can model dynamic motion in the vertical plane with
acceptable accuracy.
Numerical simulations were performed for four different cases
and different speeds. The results showed that the amplitude of heave
motion and pitch motion of the double-stepped planing hull de-
creases in comparison with that of the non-stepped hull. Moreover,

MONTH 2019 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION AND DESIGN 13

it was observed that the mean value of the pitch angle of the double-
stepped planing hull is smaller than that of the non-stepped craft. It
was seen that an increase in speed of both these planing hulls results
in the growth of both heave and pitch amplitudes. It was also found
that vertical acceleration of the double-stepped planing hull de-
creases in comparison with that of the non-stepped hull in a similar
condition. According to the simulations for both hulls at different
speeds, the vertical acceleration of the double-stepped planing hull
is smaller than that of the non-stepped hull by 20–32% for different
speeds when the wave frequency is near the natural frequency of the
boat.
Four different stages for the double-stepped planing hull in waves
were defined. These stages show the position of the wave peak with
respect to the boat. The results suggested that when the wave crest is
located at the bow of the double-stepped planing hull, its aft body
has larger pressure than its fore body. In contrast to this distribution
of pressure, when the wave crest reaches the boat’s stern, maximum
pressure occurs on the pressure area of the fore body. Finally, based
on these results, as the wave crest reaches the transom, maximum
pressure occurs on the aft body, whereas the pressure area of the fore
body becomes very small in comparison with that in previous
stages.
The results of the current study confirm that if two steps with
adequate height and location with respect to the transom are added
to the bottom of high-speed planing hulls, their ability to operate in
head sea improves. There is a reduction in amplitudes of heave and
pitch motions, and a decrease in the maximum value of vertical
acceleration. Ventilated air at the bottom of vessels is still a source
of concern regarding their stability in a transverse plane. Therefore,
future studies should aim to numerically model the roll motion in
oblique waves.
Acknowledgment
ST was supported by a Melbourne Research Scholarship (MRS)
awarded by the University of Melbourne.
References
ABRATE, S. 2013 Hull slamming, Applied Mechanics Reviews, 64(6), 060803.
AKERS, R. H. 1999 Dynamic analysis of planing hulls in the vertical plane,
Proceedings, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New
England Section, April 29, Portland, Maine.
AZCUETA, R. 2003 Steady and unsteady RANSE simulations for planing crafts,
Proceedings, The 7th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
(FAST 2003), October 7–10, Ischia, Italy.
BAKHTIARI, M., VEISI, S. T. G., AND GHASSEMI, H. 2016 Numerical modeling of
the stepped planing hull in calm water, International Journal of Engineering,
Transaction B, 29(2), 236–245.
BECKER, C., LORETO, A., AND SHELL, J. 2008 A Systematic Study of Stepped
Planing Hulls, Glen Cove, NY: Webb Institute.
BEGOVIC, E., BERTORELLO, C., AND PENNINO, S. 2014 Experimental seakeeping
assessment of a warped planing hull model series, Ocean Engineering, 83,
1–15.
BOUSSINESQ, J. 1877 Théorie de l’écoulement tourbillant (Theories of swirling
flow), Mém. prés. par div. savants à l’Acad. Sci. Paris, 23.
BRIZZOLARA, S. AND SERRA, F. 2007 Accuracy of CFD codes in the prediction of
planing surfaces hydrodynamic characteristics, Proceedings, The 2nd In-
ternational Conference on Marine Research and Transportation (ICM RT
2007), June 28–30, Naples, Italy.
CAPONNETTO, M. 2004 Particular CFD simualtins for planing hulls, Pro-
ceedings, The 2nd International Euro Conference on High Perfromance Marine
Vehicles (HIPER 01), May 2–5, Hamburg, Germany.
14 MONTH 2019
DANIELSSON, J. AND STRØMQUIST, J. 2012 Conceptual design of a high speed
super yacht tender hull form analysis and structural optimization, Master
thesis, Stockholm, Sweden: Marina System Centre for Naval Architecture,
KTH University.
DASHTIMANESH, A. AND GHADIMI, P. 2013 A three-dimensional SPH model for
detailed study of free surface deformation, just behind a rectangular planing
hull, Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engi-
neering, 35(4), 369–380.
DASHTIMANESH, A., ESFANDIARI, A., AND MANCINI, S., 2017a Performance
prediction of two-stepped planing hulls using morphing mesh approach,
Journal of Ship Production and Design, 34(3), 236–248.
DASHTIMANESH, A., TAVAKOLI, S., AND SAHOO, P. 2017b A simplified method to
calculate trim and resistance of a two-stepped planing hull, Ships and
Offshore Structures, 12(Supp. 1), S317–S329.
DASHTIMANESH, A., TAVAKOLI, S., AND SAHOO, P. K. 2016 Development of a
simple mathematical model for calculation of trim and resistance of two
stepped planing hulls with transverse steps, Proceedings, 1st International
Conference on Ships and Offshore Structures, August 31–September 6,
Hamburg, Germany.
DE ALWIS, M. P., LO MARTIRE, R., ÄNG, B. O., AND GARME, K. 2016 Devel-
opment and validation of a web-based questionnaire for surveying the health
and working conditions of high-performance marine craft populations, BMJ
Open, 6(6), e011681.
DE ALWIS, P., GARME, K., LO MARTIRE, R., KASIN, J. I., AND ANG, B. 2017 Crew
acceleration exposure, health and performance in high-speed operations at sea,
Proceedings, The 11th Symposium on High-Speed Marine Vehicles, Sep-
tember 11–13, Naples, Italy.
DE MARCO, A., MANCINI, S., MIRANDA, S., SCOGNAMIGLIO, R., AND VITIELLO, L.
2017 Experimental and numerical hydrodynamic analysis of a stepped
planing hull, Applied Ocean Research, 64, 135–154.
DURBIN, P. 2000 Turbulent Flows, Pope, S. B., Editor, Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 771 pp.
FALTINSEN, O. M. 2000 Hydroelastic slamming, Journal of Marine Science
and Technology, 5(2), 49–65.
FALTINSEN, O. M. 2005 Hydrodynamics of High-Speed Marine Vehicles,
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
GARLAND, W. R. AND MAKI, K. J. 2012 A numerical study of a two-dimensional
stepped planing surface, Journal of Ship Production and Design, 28(2),
60–72.
GARME, K. AND ROSEN, A. 2003 Time domain simulations and full-scale trials on
planing crafts in waves, International Shipbuilding Progress, 50(3), 177–208.
GHADIMI, P., DASHTIMANESH, A., AND FAGHRFOUR MAGHREBI, Y. 2013 Ini-
tiating a mathematical model for prediction of 6-DOF motion of planing
crafts in regular waves, International Journal of Engineering Mathematics,
2013, 1–16.
GHADIMI, P., TAVAKOLI, S., AND DASHTIMANESH, A. 2016a An analytical pro-
cedure for time domain simulation of roll motion of the warped planing hulls,
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part M: Journal of
Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 230(4), 600–615.
GHADIMI, P., TAVAKOLI, S., AND DASHTIMANESH, A. 2016b Coupled heave and
pitch motions of planing hulls at non-zero heel angles, Applied Ocean Re-
search, 59: 286–303.
GHADIMI, P., TAVAKOLI, S., DASHTIMANESH, A., AND ZAMANIAN, R. 2017 Steady
performance prediction of heeled planing boat in calm water using asymmetric
2DþT model, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part M:
Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 231(1), 234–257.
GRENESTEDT, J. L. 2013 Suspension boat dynamics, Transactions of the Royal
Institution of Naval Architects Part B: International Journal of Small Craft
Technology, 155, B43–B50.
GRIGOROPOULOS, G. L. AND LOUKASIS, T. A. 1995 Seakeeping performance as-
sessment of planing hulls, Transactions on the Built Environment, 11, 57–64.
HICKS, J. D., TROESCH, A. W., AND JIANG, C. 1995 Simulation and nonlinear
dynamics analysis of planing hulls, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, 117, 38–45.
HIRT, C. W. AND NICHOLS, B. D. 1981 Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the
dynamics of free boundaries, Journal of Computational Physics, 39(1),
201–225.
ITTC 2011 Recommended Procedures and Guidelines, 7.5–03-02-03.
JOURNEE, J. M. J. AND JAKOB, P. 2002 Introduction in Ship Hydromechanics,
Delft, The Netherland: Delft University of Technology.
KOHANSAL, A. R. AND GHASSEMI, H. 2008 A numerical modeling of hydro-
dynamic characteristics of various planing hull forms, Ocean Engineering,
37(5), 498–510.
JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION AND DESIGN
 LAUNDER, B. E. AND SHARMA, B. I. 1974 Application of the energy-dissipation
model of turbulence to the calculation of flow near a spinning disc, Letters in
Heat and Mass Transfer 1(2), 131–137.
LEE, E., PAVKOV, M., AND MCCUE-WEIL, L. 2014 The systematic variation of
step configuration and displacement for a double-step planing craft, Journal
of Ship Production and Design, 30(2), 89–97.
LONI, A., GHADIMI, P., NOWRUZI, H., AND DASHTIMANESH, A. 2013 Developing
a computer program for mathematical investigation of stepped planing hull
characteristics, International Journal of Physical Research, 1(2), 34–47.
LOTFI, P., ASHRAFIZAADEH, M., AND ESFAHAN, P. K. 2015 Numerical in-
vestigation of a stepped planing hull in calm water, Ocean Engineering, 94,
103–110.
LUEDERS, D. H. 1959 Model Tests of Two Planing Forms and a Rounded Beam
from in Irregular Head Seas, Hoboken, NJ: Davidson Laboratory, Stevens
Institute of Technology, R-746.
MARTIRE, R. L., DE ALWIS, M. P., ÄNG, B. O., AND GARME, K. 2017 Con-
struction of a web-based questionnaire for longitudinal investigation of work
exposure, musculoskeletal pain and performance impairments in high-
performance marine craft populations, BMJ Open, 7(7), e016006.
MORABITO, M. G. 2015 Prediction of planing hull side forces in yaw using
slender body oblique impact theory, Ocean Engineering, 101: 45–57.
MORABITO, M. G. AND PAVKOV, M. E. 2014 Experiments with stepped planing
hulls for special operations craft, Transactions of the Royal Institution of
Naval Architects Part B: International Journal of Small Craft Technology,
156(Part B), 87–97.
MORABITO, M. G., PAVKOV, M., AND TIMMINS, B. B. 2014 Experiments on
directional stability of sepped planinug hull, Transactions - Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, 122, 456–465.
MOUSAVIRAAD, S. M., ZHANG, W., AND STERN, F. 2015 URANS studies of
hydrodynamic performance and slamming loads on high-speed planing hulls
in calm water and waves for deep and shallow conditions, Applied Ocean
Research, 51, 222–240.
OLAUSSON, K. AND GARME, K. 2015 Prediction and evaluation of working
conditions on high-speed craft using suspension seat modelling, Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part M: Journal of Engineering for
the Maritime Environment, 229(3), 281–290.
SAVITSKY, D. 1964 Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls, Marine Tech-
nology, 1, 71–94.
SAVITSKY, D. 1968 On the seakeeping of planing hulls. Marine Technology,
5(2), 164–174.
SAVITSKY, D. AND BROWN, P. W. 1976 Procedures for hydrodynamic evaluation
of planing hulls in smooth and rough water, Marine Technology, 13(4),
381–400.
SAVITSKY, D. AND MORABITO, M. 2010 Surface wave contours associated with
the forebody wake of stepped planing hulls, Marine Technology, 47(1), 1–16.
SEBASTIANI, L., BRUZZONE, D., GUALENI, P., RAMBALDI, G., RUSCELLI, D., AND
VIVIANI, M. 2008 A practical method for the prediction of planing craft
MONTH 2019
View publication stats
motions in regular and irregular waves. Proceedings, The 27th International
Conference on Offshore, Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 2008),
June 15–20, Estoril, Portugal.
SVAHN, D. 2009 Performance prediction of hulls with transverse steps. Master
Thesis, Stockholm, Sweden: Marina System Centre for Naval Architecture,
KTH University.
SVERCHKOV, A. 2010 Application of air cavities on high-speed ships in Russia,
Proceedings, The International Conference on Ship Drag Reduction (Smooth-
Ships), May 20–21, Istanbul, Turkey.
TAUNTON, D. J., HUDSON, D. A., AND SHENOI, R. A. 2010 Characteristics of a
series of high speed hard chine planing hulls-part 1: Performance in calm
water, International Journal of Small Craft Technology, 152, 55–75.
TAUNTON, D. J., HUDSON, D. A., AND SHENOI, R. A. 2011 Characteristics of a
series of high speed hard chine planing hulls-part II: Performance in waves,
International Journal of Small Craft Technology, 153, B1–B22.
TAVAKOLI, S. AND DASHTIMANESH, A. 2017 Running attitudes of yawed planing
hulls in calm water: Development of an oblique 2DþT approach, Journal of
Ships and Offshore Structures, 12(8), 1086–1099.
TAVAKOLI, S., DASHTIMANESH, A., AND SAHOO, P. K. 2018a An oblique 2DþT
approach for hydrodynamic modeling of yawed planing boats in calm water,
Journal of Ship Production and Design, 34, 335–346.
TAVAKOLI, S., GHADIMI, P., AND DASHTIMANESH, A. 2017 A non-linear math-
ematical model for coupled heave, pitch and roll motions of a high-speed
planing hull, Journal of Engineering Mathematics, 104(1), 157–194.
TAVAKOLI, S., GHADIMI, P., DASHTIMANESH, A., AND SAHOO, P. K. 2015 De-
termination of hydrodynamic coefficients related to roll motion of high-speed
planing hulls, Proceedings, 13th International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation (FAST 2015), September 1–4, Washington, DC.
TAVAKOLI, S., GHADIMI, P., SAHOO, P. K., AND DASHTIMANESH, A. 2018b A
hybrid empirical–analytical model for predicting the roll motion of pris-
matic planing hulls, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engi-
neers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 232,
155–175.
VAN DEYZEN, A. 2008 A nonlinear mathematical model for motions of a
planing monohull in head seas, Proceedings, The 6th International Conference
on High Performance Marine Vehicles, September 18–19, Naples, Italy.
VEISI, S. T. G., BAKHTIAIRI, M., GHASSEMI, H., AND GHIASI, M. 2015 Toward
numerical modeling of the stepped and non-stepped planing hull, Journal of
the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, 37(6),
1635–1645.
WITTENBURG, J. 2013 Dynamics of Systems of Rigid Bodies, Wiesbaden,
Germany: Springer-Verlag, p. 17.
ZARNICK, E. E. 1979 A Nonlinear Mathematical Model of Motions of a Planing
Boat in Irregular Waves. Report 79-0867-01, Bethesda, MD: DTNSRDC.
ZARNICK, E. E. 1978 A Nonlinear Mathematical Model of Motions of a Planing
Boat in Regular Waves, Bethesda MD: David Taylor Naval Ship Research
and Development Center.
JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION AND DESIGN 15