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

net/publication/232318295

TRIMARAN HULL DESIGN FOR FAST FERRY APPLICATIONS

Conference Paper · June 2003

CITATIONS READS

4 7,014

6 authors, including:

Stefano Brizzolara Marco Ferrando

Virginia Tech (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) Università degli Studi di Genova
148 PUBLICATIONS   1,492 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   103 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alberto Francescutto
University of Trieste
93 PUBLICATIONS   1,413 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Design and Development of an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle View project

Interceptors/Intruders Hydrodynamics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stefano Brizzolara on 16 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 TRIMARAN HULL DESIGN FOR FAST FERRY APPLICATIONS

Stefano Brizzolara, Marco Capasso,

Marco Ferrando, Carlo Podenzana Bonvino
Dept. of Naval Architecture and Marine Technologies, Univ. of Genova, Italy;
Antonio Cardo, Alberto Francescutto
Dept. of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Trieste.

ABSTRACT:
Research studies about hydrodynamic performance of trimaran hull
configurations and their application to real ship design, are relatively recent,
having generally appeared in the last two decades of the last century, without
relevant follow up in the shipbuilding world.
The proposed paper aims to describe the main features of the hydrodynamic
design of a trimaran ship as an alternative solution to contemporary mono hull
or catamaran fast ferries (36-40 knots of service speed). This work has been
developed in the frame of a three year joint research project of the Departments
of Naval Architecture of the Universities of Genova, Trieste and Napoli and the
University of Ancona.
Comparison of the main resistance and seakeeping properties of two
different trimaran design (having different hull forms but equivalent in terms of
main geometric parameters and total displacement), tested in model scale with
different side hulls positions will be addressed in the paper.
The design exercise presented in the paper has comprehended also other
aspects such as the implications that different hull typologies can have on the
general layout of the vessel, problems related to the intact and damaged
stability, internal spaces and propulsion arrangements.
INTRODUCTION

After Triton (the trimaran demonstrator built by DERA in 2000 [1] the
shipbuilding world became conscious that modern and efficient ships could also
be built having a trimaran hull configuration. Nevertheless, the advantages and
implication of trimarans in terms of the general ship design have been rarely
published [2].
Aiming to fill this gap this paper proposes a comparison between the main
characteristics of two different hull geometries for a fast ferry trimaran for
commercial applications.
The design of both trimaran hulls has been based on an initial market survey
which brought to the definition of the basic reference design conditions, such as
the merchant ship type, mission profile and payload. As a result of this study [3],
the Mediterranean sea scenario and a medium size fast ferry able to carry
passengers and cars having the following design characteristics were selected:
- Main hull L/B>10
- Displacement of each side hull: about 5% of total
- Maximum total breadth: approx. 28 m
- Service speed: up to 40 knots
- Payload: 800 passengers and 240 cars
The value of L/B ratio of the main hull (taking into account that a total breadth
around 28 m allows the vessel to use standard harbor facilities for monohull
vessels), relatively lower with respect to other trimaran designs, was chosen in
order to obtain a reasonable breadth of the lower car decks of the main hull,
while preserving reasonably low wave resistance at high speed, and good
seakeeping. Having a maximum speed exceeding (by more than 50%) the
value of 3.7 0.1667 computed at the design displacement volume, the trimaran
is to be considered a high-speed craft and falls under the regulations of IMO
HSC Code.
The amount of buoyancy reserved to the side hulls was selected as a
compromise to obtain additional reserve of buoyancy for stability and to limit as
much as possible the increase in total resistance.
The first trimaran design was prepared as a consequence of the first design
spiral performed for the feasibility project. Subsequently, an alternative hull
design for the same targets has been prepared [4] allowing an interesting
comparison between the two different hull geometries, “equivalent” from the
main design specifications, i.e. payload, speed, range and main geometric
parameters relevant to the resistance and seakeeping performance of the
vessel. Both hull geometries are described in detail in the next sections.
The two main and side hulls have been designed in such a way to be fully
interchangeable, to permit a direct comparison of the effect of the hull typology
on the hydrodynamic performance of the trimaran, without any other side effects
due to the variation of main geometric parameters such as length and
displacement or initial attitude, for instance.
HULL FORM GEOMETRIES

Different design of both central and side hulls has been done from the first to
the second model. Main geometrical characteristics of the two alternative main
hulls and corresponding side hulls are given in Table 1.
The first trimaran features a main
typical fast round bilge hull (Figure
1) having V-type bow sections with
low flair and stern U-type sections
closed towards the transom in both
vertical and transversal directions.
The deadrise angle of the main
section is around 15 deg.. The
longitudinal prismatic coefficient
was kept rather low (0.645) to limit
wave resistance together with the
high slenderness ratio L/B and
L/ 1/3.
Side hulls were designed like
with hard chines forms (Figure 1)
with simple slightly convex bow

Tab. 1: Main geom. characteristics of both design

sections, high deadrise angle of the
main section (abt. 29 deg.) and
slightly warped aft straight sections.
The main hull of the second model was chosen of Deep-V type (Figure 2). In
the case of high speed monohull ships, in fact, it was shown that Deep-V hull
forms have considerable advantages over conventional round bilge hulls, in
terms of resistance and seakeeping ([5] and [6]) at high speed. The idea, then,
was that of check these advantages also in the case of a trimaran ship. The
main Deep-V hull features simple transverse section made of straight line
having high deadrise angle at the main section (abt. 34 deg.), same length and
displacement of the previous hull as well as same CP and LCB for a fairer
comparison of the residual resistance of the two alternative main hulls. The
fullness of the main section results lower than that of the first round bilge hull so
a higher breadth and draft were necessary to obtain an equal displacement.
Stern bottom lines, still straight, are highly warped toward the transom where
the bottom becomes almost horizontal and the sections close gradually in
transversal direction.
The same transom area was maintained for both main hulls, in order to
permit the same waterjet arrangement and roughly the same contribution of the
transom wave formation to the wave resistance.
The side hulls of the second model (Figure 2) were re-designed as well,
assuming simple symmetric U-type section with a very small transom.
The models of the two trimarans were built to a scale of 1:60 and tested in
the towing tank of the University of Genova for still water resistance tests and in
the towing tank of the University of Trieste for seakeeping.
The trimaran models were built in ABS material by means of a modern
technique used in mechanical engineering for rapid prototyping (Fused
Figure 1: Body plan of the main round bilge Figure 2: Body plan of the main Deep-V hull
hull and of the asymmetric side hulls (half and of the symmetric side hulls of the second
side of the body plan) of the first trimaran trimaran
deposition Modeling), with an overall accuracy of about +/- 0.15%.
Having defined Clearance and Stagger as follows, it was decided to test the
model with a systematic variation of stagger and clearance of the side hulls side
hulls according to the test matrix presented in Table 2.
Stagger (%) = Long. distance between the side hulls transom and the main
hull transom, in percent of a
reference main hull length
equal to 120m.
Clearance (%) = Lateral
distance between the
external side (in case of
first model) or symmetry
plane (in case of second
Table 2: Clearance and Stagger test values model) of the side hulls and
the main hull symmetry
plane, in percent of a
reference main hull length
equal to 120m.
A sketch illustrating the
relative hulls positions for
different values of
Figure 3: Variation of the absolute clearance (CL) and the Clearance and Stagger is
absolute stagger (ST) for symmetric and asymmetric side provided in Figure 3.
hulls
 Figure 4: General plan of the first trimaran fast ferry design

Figure 5: Embarking car deck and engine room views of the second trimaran

GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS

Two possible solutions regarding the general arrangements of the trimarans

are shown in Figure 4 and 5 at a Stagger and Clearance values close to the
optimal solutions from the resistance point of view (PL1-PT1 for both trimarans
as explained in resistance paragraph).
 As reported in the following the comparison between the trimarans will start
from the just mentioned figures as explanatory enough. The main car deck, in
fact, although strongly conditioned by the configuration chosen, is not
influenced by the effect of the side hulls shape, extremely narrow for both
trimarans.
Focusing the analysis on the consequences that a choice of the main hull
geometry has on the payload, it is possible to note that the embarking car deck,
thanks to an highest local hull breadth, allows an increase of about 10% for the
loaded cars (from 65 to 72). Since also the hoistable car deck and the lower car
deck behave in the same way, the main hull shape of the second trimaran is
more effective in terms of load capacity of the ship.
As visible from the engine room views of Figure 4 and 5, the distribution of
the hull volume at the stern (especially with regards to 2 ½ and 3 water line)
allow to maintain the same engine arrangement for both trimarans and hence
the theoretical validity of the present comparison.

STILL WATER RESISTANCE

Both models of trimarans have been tested at DINAV Towing Tank at

Froude numbers in the range to 0.25 – 0.64 (full scale speed range 16.7 – 42.8
knots). For some of the hull configurations of the first trimaran, the tests at the
highest speeds were not performed due to an unfavorable interference between
the wave formation of the central and the side hulls, so bad to produce a very

Figure 6: Full scale effective power Figure 7: Full scale effective power
(PL1 configurations) (PL2 configurations)
 high internal wave crest, ultimately
causing danger of model flooding.
In this paper the comparison of
performance between the two hulls is
discussed in terms of effective power at
full scale, the resistance being predicted
with ITTC-57 procedure.
For the first model, as presented in
[7] and [8], the towing tank tests
indicated that the minimum value of PES
in the intermediate speed range (25-30
knots) is occurring at high clearance
and low stagger values (PL1-PT3) or for
low stagger and intermediate clearance
values (PL1-PT2). On the contrary, the
trends at higher speeds show that the
minimum PES is obtained for low stagger
and clearance values (PL1-PT0 and
PL1-PT1, transom in line and side hulls
closer to the main hull), taking into
Figure 8: Full scale effective power (PL3 account that also the configuration PL3-
configurations) PT3 provides comparable results,
against a less realistic solution as regards internal arrangements.
This finding is in quite good agreement with results from Ackers et al. [9]
which were used in the preliminary power estimation of the research project.
This agreement is obviously qualitative, since Ackers’ results are given in terms
of percent interference while our results are total resistance at full scale.
In Figures 6, 7, and 8 trimaran full scale effective power curves PES are given
for the different clearances at constant stagger values for both trimarans (first
number indicating the trimaran design version, so 1PT0 is the first trimaran with
clearance PT0). Tests results, in fact, were performed fisrt for six configurations
of the second model, which have been tested first since they resulted to provide
the lowest values of resistance for the first model (see table 3).
In all the configuration tested, the second hull design showed a better resis-
tance than the first. This difference can be ascribed essentially at the difference
between hull form typologies, having the main
Position L1 L2 L3
T0 x x x parameters affecting the residual resistance
T1 x almost the same value among the two models
T2 x (LWL, CP,B/T,). Moreover being the wetted
T3 x
surface of the second model notably higher
Table 3: Second model configurations than the first one, the relative advantage on
the residual resistance in even more pronounced than what appears from the
total resistance. More details about the tests results and analysis can be found
in [7,10]. In any case already in previous studies in the case of monohulls,
deep-V hull forms showed advantages over conventional round bilge hulls
especially at highest speeds. In this case, at VS=42 knots the 2PT1-PL1
solution (PES = 26MW) is in absolute the best denoting an advantage of about
10% over the first trimaran (1 PL1-PT1; PES = 29MW).
SEAKEEPING

Besides the still water resistance tests, a campaign of tests in head regular
waves to check seakeeping qualities of the two hulls was planned on the basis
of the best configurations identified as regards performance in calm water.
The results, in this paper reported in terms of added resistance and heave
transfer functions compared with a same length monohull (frigate) optimised for
seakeeping, are reported in Figure 9 and in Figure 10. More detailed results
concerning seakeeping are going to be presented in [11].
To avoid excessive flooding of the models due to green water in head waves,
a maximum ship speed of 30 knots and a small wave amplitude (at fixed
steepness equal to 1/100 for both trimarans) was adopted. Due to the difference
in longitudinal position of the centre of gravity of the different trimaran
configurations, heave was reported
in all cases to the middle
perpendicular.
The lower vertical motions of the
second design shown by the heave
transfer function in Figure 9 can be
correlated with the deep-V shape of
the central hull, usually having
more vertical motion damping than
equivalent round bilge monohull [6]
at higher speeds (Fn=0.5÷0.8).
Present study was more oriented
to the analysis of the effect of
position of outriggers. Tests are
actually under schedule with
different combinations of side-main
hulls (such as all deep-V hulls). The
cross analysis of these tests will
allow the assessment of the
influence of the side hull geometry
and form on the global behaviour of
the trimaran ship.
For sake of comparison between
the two trimarans, the case of
added resistance corresponding to
wavelength equal to ship length
(which is close to the maximum), is
reported in Fig. 10.
Taking into account that the
same values of displacement and
LWL of both trimarans allow a direct
comparison between the two
Figure 9: Heave transfer function of first models, both diagrams show a
trimaran design at Vs=30 kn (Frigate: without certain improvement in
marks ) performance of the second design,
 Figure 10: Added Resistance comparison of both trimaran design at different speeds

especially in the PT3-PL3 configuration at high speed.

The configuration PT0-PL1, identified as the best for to side resistance, does
not result to be the best for the added resistance, where the case PL3-PT3
results in advantage. In these terms a compromise in the design solution is in
general necessary, depending on the priority scale of the performance assumed
(comfort and operability against fuel consumption and speed).

STABILITY

As regards stability, both trimaran designs

have been checked with respect to present
criteria of the IMO/HSC rules. A trimaran ship, as
expected, has in general an intermediate static
stability between those of monohulls and
catamarans. Despite a very high intact stability,
the conditions become critical when an
asymmetric flooding is considered, as arguable
from figure 12. Figure 12, in fact, synthesises the
verification of the most stringent stability
requirements in the intact condition (a) and for
two damaged condition corresponding to the side
(b) and bottom(c) damage cases foreseen by
actual IMO-HSC rules, i.e. the sided + gusting + Figure 11: Initial and modified
heeling due to passenger crowding or high speed watertight volumes of the
turning. second trimaran design (in the
Especially in the asymmetric damaged static equilibrium angle for
condition the righting arm curve of the trimaran the asymmetric damaged
condition c)
has an evident slope discontinuity around 14-18
degree (depending on the analysed case and trimaran design) caused by the
emergence of the intact side hull opposite to the heeled side. The subsequent
drastic loss of righting moment (that would be dramatic in the case of a
catamaran) is mitigated by the contribution to stability of the trimaran main hull
and by the above water volumes of the damaged side. Monohull fast ships, on
Figure 12: Verification of worst dynamic criteria of intact (wind + gusting + high speed turning)
and damage stability (crowding +wind) for multihull ships. First trimaran design (left) and second
trimaran design (right).
the other hand, do not suffer at all by this problem, having in general symmetric
flooding which can bring, instead, to freeboard problems with respect to the
lower car deck.
To better appreciate the effect of buoyancy reserve of the side hulls during
dynamic heeling moment, first the second trimaran has been intentionally
verified with slender side hulls also in the above water portion (see figure 11).
And in fact this extreme layout (unrealistic also for structural reasons) cannot
satisfy the dynamic criteria in the case of worst asymmetric damaged condition
(i.e. side damage of case c) of figure 12), while intact and bottom damaged
criteria (case a and b) are satisfied.
In summary, the trimaran designer as in the case of catamarans has to be
very well aware of the risks of asymmetric flooding and in particular he is
required to provide a convenient shape to the above water side hull to cope with
the dynamic stability requirements of the IMO-HSC code, once having fixed the
lateral position of side hulls from resistance or seakeeping considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

Two different designs for the same target ship, a trimaran fast ferry operating
in the Mediterranean sea, differing mainly in the hull form typologies, have been
described and analyzed in the paper with regards to basic design
characteristics (general arrangement, propulsion, stability, etc.) and
hydrodynamic performance as regards resistance and seakeeping. The second
hull form is based on a deep-V main hull, similar to those used in modern
monohull fast ferries, in alternative to the more conventional round bilge first
main hull.
The design exercise confirmed in both cases a appreciable freedom in the
plan of internal arrangement and a great margin on intact and damaged stability
if proper volumes in the above water portion of the side hull are reserved. As
regards damaged stability the trimaran, in fact, behaves in a intermediate way
respect to a monohull and a catamaran, mitigating the negative effects of an a-
symmetric flooding (of side hull), that can result to be dramatic for a catamaran.
Predicted still water resistance at full scale of both designs, based on model
tests with different relative position of side hulls, show a general marked
advantage of the second design against the first one, in the medium-high speed
range for all the best positions of lateral hulls found for the first design, the best
overall position of side hulls, at high speed, being the less advanced and
relatively closest one.
Seakeeping performance of the second model results also advantageous,
especially at high speed for heave motions and added resistance.
The configurations featuring the best resistance and seakeeping
performance are not the same in both designs, so the designer needs to do, in
general, a compromise taking into account damage stability and general layout
at the same time. Further activities will comprise the completion of systematic
tests for all all the other possible configuration (obtained by interchanging main
and side hulls). A deeper analysis will be devoted to assess the relative
performance of designed trimarans against actual monohull fast ferries, since
from preliminary consideration they do not show marked advantages.

NOMENCLATURE

SYMBOL S.I. UNIT DESCRIPTION

2
ATR [m ] transom area
2
AX [m ] main section area
BWL [m] max beam on WL
CB= /(BWL LWL T) block coefficient
CP= /(AT LWL) prismatic coefficient
CWL waterplane area coefficient
CX main section area coefficient
D [m] depth of ship on MP
1/2
Fn= V / (g LWL) Froude number
2
g [m/s ] gravity acceleration
htrans [m] transom draft
LOA [m] over all length
LCB longitudinal centre of buoyancy
L or LPP [m] length between perpendiculars
LWL [m] length of waterline
PES [kW] full scale effective power
2
S [m ] wetted surface
T [m] draft
VS [m/s,knots] ship speed
Vm [m/s,] model speed
3
[m ] volume
w [m] wave length
hw [m] wave height
HTF [m] heave transfer function
e [rad/s] encounter frequency

REFERENCES

1. Various, “R.V. TRITON: Trimaran Demonstrator Project” (2000) –

Proceeding RINA Conference, Southampton (U.K.), April 2000.
2. Pattison D. R., Zhang J.W., (1994), “Trimaran Ships”, Transactions of
Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. pp.143-161.
3. Benvenuto, G., Brizzolara, S., Figari, M., Podenzana Bonvino, C., (2001a)
“Fast Trimaran Ships: Some Examples for Commercial Application”, Proc.
HIPER'01, 2nd Int. Euroconference on High Performance Marine Vehicles,
Hamburg, July 2001, pp. 64-78.
4. Brizzolara, S, (2002) “Design of New Trimaran Hull Forms with Deep-V
Main Hull and Round Bilge Side Hulls, in Alternative to the First DINAV
Trimaran Design: Body Plan, Hydrostatics and Stability”, DINAV Internal
Report SB-01-02 (in Italian).
5. Brizzolara, S., Grossi, L., (1997) “Design Aspects and Applications of Deep-
V Hull Forms to High Speed Crafts”, Proc. of IMDEX ’97 International
 Maritime Defence Exhibition & Conference, Greenwich-London, October
1997.
6. Grossi, S. Brizzolara, L. Sebastiani, G. Caprino (1998), “Seakeeping Design
of Fast Monohull Ferries”, Proc. of PRADS’98 International Symposium on
Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units, Den Hag, Sept 1998.
7. Capasso, M., Ferrando, M., Podenzana Bonvino, C., Cardo, A.,
Francescutto, A., (2001) “Study of the Hydrodynamic Performances of a
Trimaran Ship for Fast Transportation”, Proceedings 1st Int. Congress on
Maritime Transport, Barcelona, November 2001, Olivella Puig et al. Eds, pp.
263-273.
8. Cardo, A., Francescutto, A., Capasso, M., Ferrando, M., Podenzana
Bonvino, C., "Hydrodynamic Performance in Waves of a Trimaran Ship",
CD Proceedings of 10th International Congress of IMAM, Rethimnon, May
2002.
9. Ackers B., Michael T.J., Tredennik O.W., Landen H.C., et al., (1997), “An
investigation of the Resistance Characteristics of Powered Trimaran side-
Hull Configurations”, SNAME Transactions, Vol. 105, pp. 349-373.
10. Cardo, A., Ferrando, M., Podenzana Bonvino C., (2003) “Influence of hull
shape on the resistance of a fast trimaran vessel”, to appear on
Proceedings of FAST 2003 Conference, Sorrento (Italy).
11. Brizzolara, S., Capasso, M., Francescutto, A., (2003) “Effect of hulls form
variations on the hydrodynamic performances in waves of a trimaran ship”,
to appear on Proceedings of FAST 2003 Conference, Sorrento (Italy).

View publication stats