Comparison of Predicted and Measured

Total Resistance of a Model SWATH

L. Lazauskas, Cyberiad, leo@cyberiad.net
13 March 2012

Summary
The computer program Michlet was used to estimate the calm-water resistance of a 1.819m model SWATH.
Predictions are compared to measurements at three drafts and three demihull separation distances, and
for the demihulls in isolation.

1 Introduction

Table 1: Environmental parameters used as input to the computer model.

Quantity Symbol Value Units

Gravitational acceleration g 9.8043 ms −2
Water depth h 1.5 m
Water density ρ 998.5 kg m−3
Water kinematic viscosity ν 1.05456 m 2 s−1 × 10−6

Experimental data is from model tests performed in 1996 by AMC Search Ltd, Launceston, Tasmania
[1] on a 1:41.81818 scale bare-hull model. The towing tank is 60m long, 3.5m wide, and 1.5m deep. All
results were conducted in fresh water at 18◦ C.
Environmental parameters used as input to the computer programs are summarised in Table 1. The
value of the gravitational acceleration in Table 1 is an estimate for Launceston.
The demihull bulb has an elliptical nose, a length of parallel middlebody, and a parabolic tail. The
principal parameters of the vessels are summarised in Table 2.

2 Resistance
In the present study, total resistance is considered to be the sum of the wave resistance (estimated using
Michell’s [4] thin-ship theory), skin-friction (estimated using the ITTC 1957 line), and an allowance for
form drag.
Hyslop [3] used Holtrop and Mennen’s empirical formula on the half-submerged pod to estimate its
form factor and found 1 + kf = 1.138. Hyslop [3] further assumed that no form factor should be applied
to the strut because it can be “considered to be comparable to a flat plate”.
From Curve C in Fig. 2 of Granville’s report [2] on the drag of torpedo-like underwater bodies, it can
be seen that a Series 58 body, with a diameter-to-length of 0.06 and 60% parallel middle body has a form
factor of 1 + kf ≈ 1.14, so Hyslop’s estimate seems very reasonable.

3 Results
In the results to follow, we have excluded from consideration the demihull at 80% draft because the
experiments may have been corrupted [3]. We have also excluded one apparent “sour” point from the
results for the demihull at 120% draft, namely the value measured at model speed U = 1.597ms−1 .
The plots at the left of Fig. 1 compare measured total resistance (open symbols) and predictions
(curves). The plots at the right are the percentage differences.

1
 Table 2: Model hull geometry and principal parameters.

Quantity Symbol Value Units

Pod length Lp 1.819 m
Strut length Ls 1.255 ”
Pod beam Bp 0.110 ”
Strut beam Bs 0.0538 ”
Pod draft Tp 0.110 ”
Strut 80% draft T80 0.0450 ”
Strut 100% draft T100 0.0837 ”
Strut 120% draft T120 0.1224 ”
Demihull Separation Distances
80% w80 0.4381 ”
100% w100 0.5476 ”
120% w120 0.6571 ”

Demihull Wetted Surface Areas m2

Pod Sp 0.5172 ”
Strut at 80% draft S80 0.1135 ”
Strut at 100% draft S100 0.2074 ”
Strut at 120% draft S120 0.3087 ”

Demihull Volumes m3
Pod ∇p 0.01468 ”
Strut at 80% draft ∇80 0.00258 ”
Strut at 100% draft ∇100 0.00481 ”
Strut at 120% draft ∇120 0.00703 ”

Results for the demihulls in isolation are very reasonable for speeds greater than 1.5 ms −1 where
differences between measurements and predictions are less than 5%. Differences are greater for the two-
hulled vessels, and in particular for the 80% demihull separation case, however, predictions are quite
acceptable for speeds greater than about 2.0 ms−1 .

Acknowledgments
This study would not have been possible without the experimental data provided by the Naval Materiel
Requirements Branch of the Australian Department of Defence. Thanks are also extended to Martin
Grimm for useful discussions over several years.

References
[1] AMC Search Ltd., “Calm water resistance tests for the SWATH6a”, AMC Report No. 96/T/1, Sept.
1996.

[2] Granville, Paul S., “Elements of the drag of underwater bodies”, DTMB Report SPD-672-01, June
1976.

[3] Hyslop, Peter, “Correlation study for the resistance of a SWATH systematic series”, Australian Dept.
of Defence, Naval Materiel Requirements Branch, Technical Memo A016274, 11 Feb. 1998.

[4] Michell, J.H., “The wave resistance of a ship”, Phil. Magazine, Series 5, Vol. 45, 1898, pp. 106–123.

2
 20 15
Demihull Demihull
100% Draft 100% Draft
120% Draft 120% Draft
10

15

100*(1 - RTexp/RT)
RT (N)

10 0

-5

-10

0 -15
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-1 -1
Speed (ms ) Speed (ms )

40 15
80% Separation 80% Separation
80% Draft 80% Draft
100% Draft 100% Draft
120% Draft 10 120% Draft

30

100*(1 - RTexp/RT)
RT (N)

20 0

-5

10

-10

0 -15
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-1
Speed (ms ) Speed (ms-1)

40 15
100% Separation 100% Separation
80% Draft 80% Draft
100% Draft 100% Draft
120% Draft 10 120% Draft

30

5
100*(1 - RTexp/RT)
RT (N)

20 0

-5

10

-10

0 -15
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-1
Speed (ms ) Speed (ms-1)

40 15
120% Separation 120% Separation
80% Draft 80% Draft
100% Draft 100% Draft
120% Draft 10 120% Draft

30

5
100*(1 - RTexp/RT)
RT (N)

20 0

-5

10

-10

0 -15
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Speed (ms-1) Speed (ms-1)

Figure 1: Comparison of measured and predicted total resistance (left) and percentage differences (right).