Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115405

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Numerical study on the effect of airfoil attack angle and height on the
resistance reduction of the planing trimaran
Jiuyang Cang , Hanbing Sun *, Jin Zou , Lei Wan , Liru Zan
College of Shipbuilding Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, 150001, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Prof. A.I. Incecik The planing trimaran has unique rapidity and stability. In this paper, airfoils are added to the planing trimaran to
provide additional aerodynamic and hydrodynamic lift, achieving the purpose of reducing the resistance of the
Keywords: planing trimaran. By solving Reynold-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations and combining SST k-Omega
Planing trimaran turbulence model with Volume of Fraction (VOF) method, a numerical simulation method is established to
Resistance reduction
analyze the motion characteristics of the planing trimaran. The attack angle and the height of airfoils are mainly
Airfoil
studied in this paper. NACA4404 and a special airfoil named 2# airfoil are selected as the research objects. The
Aerodynamic
Hydrodynamic range of attack angle is 0–8◦ . The drag reduction effect of the airfoil does not change linearly with the increase of
Numerical simulation the attack angle in the high speed range. NACA4404 and 2# airfoil have the best drag reduction effect at 2◦ and
4◦ respectively. The range of airfoil height is 0.8h–1h (“h” is the wing height from baseline). For NACA4404,
lower wing height is beneficial to reduce the resistance, especially in the low speed range. The 2# airfoil has poor
performance in the low speed range after reducing the height, and can increase the resistance by up to 16.3%.

1. Introduction
The planing trimaran has the remarkable advantages of simple
structure and high-speed. Generally, the speed of the planing craft can
reach 40–50 knots. In recent years, the hydrodynamic performance of
planing crafts has been widely studied, and the performance of the en­
gine is also improving. This makes the speed of planing crafts tend to
increase. The planing crafts used for competition can even reach 120
knots. As the speed increases, the proportion of air resistance increases
further. Therefore, it is very necessary to study the aerodynamic per­
formance of planing crafts.
In the study of the rapidity and hydrodynamic characteristics of the
planing craft, researchers generally focus on the hydrodynamic perfor­
mance of the submerged part of the planing craft, as well as the hy­
drodynamic research of the structure of the planing craft, such as the
step, the stern flap and the tunnel of the multihull. At present, a large
number of researchers (Panahi et al., 2009; Judge et al., 2020; Karimi
et al., 2015; Ma et al., 2015; Yousefi et al., 2013) have carried out a
comparative study on the hydrodynamic performance analysis and
calculation methods of various planing craft hull under certain condi­
tions, and many researchers have also carried out analysis and research
on the specific structure of the craft. De Marco (De Marco et al., 2017)
et al. carried out the towing test and numerical simulation analysis of a
single stepped monohull planing craft in still water, and studied the
complex fluid movement at the water-air mixture behind the step. Lu S.J
(Zou et al., 2019). and others carried out the research on the stern flap
on the basis of the single-hull double stepped planing craft. Yousefi R
(Yousefi et al., 2014). simulated the friction resistance and pressure
resistance of monohull planing craft and planing trimaran with the same
size of 1:10. Jiang Y (Jiang et al., 2017). studied the hydrodynamic and
aerodynamic characteristics of the planing trimaran at several high
speed points in combination with the towing test and simulation. In
addition, Jiang Y (Jiang et al., 2016). also studied the influence of tunnel
dimensions, such as tunnel width and height, on the hydrodynamic and
aerodynamic characteristics of the tunnel, and analyzed the complex
movement of water-air mixture in the tunnel. Du L. and Sun H.B (Du
et al., 2019). studied the structure of the air intake of the planing
trimaran, and proved that the existence of the air intake can produce
obvious drag reduction effect under high-speed navigation compared
with the planing craft without the air intake. Cucinotta (Cucinotta et al.,
2021) studied the effect of longitudinal rails on an air cavity stepped
planing hull. Jiang J.B (Jiang et al., 2022). considered the impact of
aerodynamic lift formed by the tunnel on the performance of the planing
trimaran in terms of displacement. Ebrahimi (Ebrahimi et al., 2022)

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sunhanbing@hrbeu.edu.cn (H. Sun).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115405
Received 26 April 2023; Received in revised form 7 July 2023; Accepted 15 July 2023
Available online 1 August 2023
0029-8018/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Cang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115405

Fig. 1. Prototype model.

Fig. 2. Improved model.

Table 1
Main dimensions of the model.
Main Dimension Symbol Value

Overall Length(m) LOA 2.4

Main hull beam(m) B 0.64
Height(m) H 0.32
Draft(m) T 0.098
Displacement(kg) Δ 40
Longitudinal center of gravity(m) LCG 0.623
Span of a single wing(m) l 0.75
Average chord length(m) cA 0.7
Wing height from baseline(m) h 0.18

Fig. 4. Mesh generation.

its flow field characteristics and gave the shape design with the best air
drag reduction effect. Kim and Hwang (2012) (Kim and Hwang, 2013)
carried out CFD numerical calculation and wind tunnel test on a planing
craft model, and obtained the conclusion that the air resistance of the
planing craft model can account for 30% of the total ship resistance at 30
knots. Matveev (Matveev and Dubrovsky, 2006) and others have studied
the aerodynamic performance of the new planing trimaran. The hull of
the planing craft is designed into the shape of a wing. Through model
test and simulation, the purpose of raising the hull with the help of
aerodynamic lift is achieved. Cang J.Y (Cang et al., 2023). used the CFD
method to study the aerodynamic performance of the surface shape and
tail shape of high speed planing crafts. When the speed is increased,
more parts of the planing craft are lifted out of the water due to the fluid
support force, so the volume in the air is larger. In addition, the air
Fig. 3. Calculation domain.
resistance of the hull increases rapidly with the increase of speed. This
makes the proportion of air resistance of planing crafts at high speed also
considered the aerodynamic performance in the numerical and experi­
increase. In the future, the continuous improvement of the design speed
mental study of high-speed catamaran.
of the planing craft will become the development trend. Therefore, the
In the existing research, the results on the air resistance of planing
research on aerodynamic performance of planing trimaran is more
crafts are very few. Park (Park et al., 2014) et al. simulated four types of
valuable.
deckhouse shape models of monohull high-speed planing craft, analyzed
In this study, the wings are added to the planing trimaran instead of

2
J. Cang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115405

Fig. 5. Wall Y+ of the planing craft at Fr∇ = 6.55.

aerodynamic performance of the wings and the hydrodynamic perfor­

mance of the planing trimaran with the addition of wings. Firstly, the
geometric characteristics of the planing trimaran model and the position
of the wings are clearly described. Then, a brief introduction of the CFD
solver is presented, followed by the description of numerical setup
(mesh generation and boundary conditions).Validation of the numerical
method is carried out by comparison between numerical and experi­
mental results. The performance of wings with different attack angle and
height is analyzed. By comparing the performance of lift, air resistance,
and analyzing the aerodynamic characteristics of different conditions,
the effect of wings on the rapidity and the motion attitude of the planing
trimaran is summarized.

2. Numerical setup

2.1. Physical description of hull geometry

The prototype model is shown in Fig. 1. The main hull is in the

middle of the planing craft, providing most of the buoyancy and hy­
Fig. 6. Calculated resistance in mesh independence analysis. drodynamic lift. There are short demi-hulls on both sides, which can
only provide a small amount of buoyancy. A tunnel region is formed
between the demi-hulls and the main hull. The existing research has
Table 2 proved that the tunnel region has good hydro-air hybrid characteristics,
Convergence ratio. and can lift the hull and maintain longitudinal stability during high-
Dimensions Model speed navigation. The concept diagram of improved model with added
wing is shown in Fig. 2. The red line in Fig. 2 is on the horizontal plane
0 < RG < 1 Monotonic convergence
RG < 0 and |RG | < 1 Oscillatory convergence
where the baseline is located. The wing is added on both sides of the hull
RG > 1 Monotonic divergence near the tail. The lift center of the wing is farther back than the center of
RG < 0 and |RG | > 1 Oscillatory divergence gravity of the hull. The wingspan of a single wing is close to the width of
the planing craft, which can provide significant aerodynamic lift, but it
is not necessary to lift the hull completely off the water. According to the
completed study, trapezoidal wings have better aerodynamic perfor­
mance among rectangular wings, swept back wings and trapezoidal
wings. In addition, the airfoil profile named 2# airfoil (Wang et al.,
2021) and the NACA4404 in the classic NACA series wings can generate
greater aerodynamic lift. Therefore, the trapezoidal wing was selected as
the geometric shape, and the 2# airfoil and NACA4404 were selected as
the profile shape in the study. The main dimensions of the model are
listed in Table 1.

2.2. Mathematical and numerical method

During simulation, the governing equation of incompressible viscous

flow is described by the RANS equations which is the most widely used
Fig. 7. Test plan. method in engineering. The equation is described as following,

∂ui ∂ui ∂ ( ＇ ＇ ) 1 ∂p ∂2 ui
designing the planing trimaran as a wing, which will effectively retain + uj + ui uj = − +v (1)
∂t ∂xj ∂xj ρ ∂xi ∂xi ∂xj
the excellent hydrodynamic performance of the planing trimaran. The
purpose of this design is to improve the resistance performance of the
where ui , uj denote the time averaged velocity components, u＇
i , uj are
＇
planing craft through aerodynamic lift. The main work is to analyze the
the fluctuations of the velocity components, p is the time averaged

3
J. Cang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115405

Fig. 8. Comparisons of numerical result and experimental data: (a) Resistance; (b) Trim angle; (c) Sinkage.

Table 3
Computational result and experimental data.
Fr∇ R/Δ Trim(deg) Sinkage/T

Cpmt. Exp. Err.(%) Cpmt. Exp. Err.(%) Cpmt. Exp. Err.(%)

1.09 0.119 0.116 − 2.64% 5.60 5.47 − 2.38% − 0.160 − 0.126 − 26.76%
1.64 0.156 0.159 2.14% 6.52 6.76 3.55% 0.078 0.081 3.30%
2.18 0.166 0.176 5.21% 6.33 6.59 3.95% 0.311 0.315 1.18%
2.73 0.168 0.174 3.15% 5.03 5.32 5.45% 0.407 0.432 5.81%
3.28 0.188 0.188 0.05% 3.92 4.26 7.98% 0.435 0.468 6.97%
3.82 0.217 0.223 3.02% 3.25 3.55 8.32% 0.460 0.441 − 4.27%
4.37 0.254 0.259 2.17% 2.99 3.22 7.09% 0.484 0.477 − 1.52%
4.91 0.298 0.293 − 1.45% 2.92 3.12 6.53% 0.514 0.504 − 1.93%
5.46 0.300 0.324 7.38% 2.90 3.06 5.07% 0.545 0.522 − 4.46%
6.01 0.307 0.354 13.15% 2.99 3.17 5.65% 0.579 0.540 − 7.19%
6.55 0.324 0.363 10.63% 3.33 3.42 2.69% 0.639 0.639 0.02%
7.10 0.317 0.362 12.39% 3.40 3.74 8.97% 0.696 0.666 − 4.48%
7.64 0.328 0.368 10.85% 3.33 3.86 13.78% 0.718 0.702 − 2.31%

pressure, ρ is dynamic viscosity coefficient, t is time and xi , xj are unit

Table 4 vectors in directions of i and j. To close this set of equations, the Shear
Main dimensions of airfoils. Stress Transport (SST) k-ω turbulence model is selected in the study,
Main Dimension Value which has a wide range of application and reasonable calculation ac­
2
Wing area(m ) 0.525 curacy in the flow field calculation, and has been widely used in the
Wingspan(m) 0.75 calculation of engineering flow field. The equation is described as
Root chord length(m) 0.9 following,
Cusp chord length(m) 0.5
The transported variable of turbulent kinetic energy, k, is defined as
Aspect ratio 1.071
Attack angle (◦ ) 0–8 following,
( )
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂k
(ρk) + (ρkui ) = Γk + Gk − Y k (2)
∂t ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj

4
J. Cang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115405

Fig. 9. The attack angles of NACA4404 and 2# airfoil.

Fig. 10. Aerodynamic performance of NACA4404: (a) L/Δ; (b)L/D.

The second transported variable ω is defined as following, Other than the solving process of traditional ships, the planing craft
( ) is mainly supported by the hydrodynamic lift during planing. The hull
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ε
(ρω) + (ρωui ) = Γω + Gω − Yω + Dω (3) behaviour (pitch and heave) at high speed is very different from that in
∂t ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj
static floating and has significant influence on the resistance perfor­
Gk , Gω represent the turbulent kinetic energies due to the average mance. Therefore, a 6-DOF motion equation is introduced here and the
velocity gradient, Yk , Yω are turbulent dissipation terms, Γk , Γω denote moment of hull body is implemented by the coupling of the motion and
the effective diffusion terms, Dω is the orthogonal divergence term. flow solver.
The volume of fluid (VOF) model is applied to track the location and After the initial flow field solving, the force and moment acting on
evolution of the free surface. The basic idea of the VOF is to define the the hull body, including the shear stress, pressure caused by interaction
marking function α in the discrete domain and to determine the value of of model and flow field and model gravity, could be acquired by the
the volume function in one grid according to the volume of the fluid in it: equations below:
When the value of α is 1 or 0, there is only one fluid in the grid. When the ∫
→
value of α is between 0 and 1, it is occupied by two kinds of fluids, that F = ([τ] − p[I]) • →n dS (5)
means there is a free surface in the grid. α satisfies the following
S

transport equation, →
∫
M= r − →
(→ rG )([τ] − p[I]) • →
n dS (6)
∂α ∂α ∂α S
+u + v = 0 (4)
∂t ∂x ∂y

5
J. Cang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115405

Fig. 11. Aerodynamic performance of 2# airfoil: (a) L/Δ; (b)L/D.

Fig. 12. Resistance, heave, trim and drag reduction efficiency of NACA4404: (a) Sinkage; (b)Trim; (c)Resistance; (d)Drag reduction percentage.

where [τ], p[I] are the shearing force and pressure respectively, [I] is the calculated by using:
unit vector of the pressure. → n denotes the outer normal vector of the →
→ d2 X
model surface, → r and →rG stand for displacement of mesh nodes on hull F =m 2 (7)
dt
surfaces and displacement of the gravity centre. S represents the hull
→ →
surfaces. The linear displacement X and angular displacement θ can be

6
J. Cang et al.
Fig. 13. Resistance, heave, trim and drag reduction efficiency of 2# airfoil: (a) Sinkage; (b)Trim; (c)Resistance; (d)Drag reduction percentage.
( →)
→ d dθ
M= I (8)
dt dt
→ →
where F and M are defined as the force and moment vector acting on
the model, m denotes the mass.
2.3. Domain and boundary conditions
The setting of domain size and flow field boundary is shown in Fig. 3.
The original point of the domain is at the lowest stern plate of the
planing trimaran. The X-axis is positive along the bow direction, the Y-
axis is positive along the port side of the ship width, and the Z-axis is
positive upward. It can be seen that, the domain extends for 1L in front
of hull, 4L behind the hull, 1.5L to the side, 1.5L under the free surface,
and 0.6L above the free surface. Due to the symmetry of the flow field,
only half of the planing crafts and corresponding areas are calculated in
the study. The hull is set as a moving boundary, and a non-slip condition
is imposed on the hull surface. Apply free sliding conditions at the inlet
and outlet of the flow field. The central plane of the hull is a symmetrical
plane. The inlet flow velocity is set as the tested speed. At the outlet,
hydrostatic pressure defined as a function of water level height is
applied. The initial position of the free surface is determined by defining
the volume fraction function of water and air at the outlet and inlet.
7
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115405
2.4. Mesh generation
The mesh in the calculation area is divided by the mesh generation
system in Star-CCM+ (see Fig. 4). The subsequent simulation work is
also done by Star-CCM+. Trimmed mesh and prism layer mesh are
selected as the mesh model. The main disadvantage of the trimmed mesh
is that it cannot handle very complex surfaces better. The surface of the
planing trimaran is relatively simple. From the generated mesh, the
mesh quality is good and shows the geometric characteristics of the
planing trimaran completely. Another disadvantage of the trimmed
mesh is the inability to accurately capture the splash phenomenon of the
free surface. However, this has no significant impact on this study. As
the distance to the hull surface gets closer, the mesh size becomes
smaller. The outermost mesh size of the domain is large, and the mesh
density increasing area is set around the hull to properly improve the
calculation accuracy and the transition between the large mesh and the
small mesh. The hull surface mesh size is the smallest, and the prism
layer is set, and the prism layer is gradually thickened from the hull
surface outward. Another mesh density increasing area is set at the free
surface to improve the capture of the shape of the free surface and the
accuracy of calculation.
Before starting the numerical study, the mesh size need to be
determined through numerical verification. The speed of 12 m/s is
selected, and its volume Froude number Fr∇ = 6.55. The size of the
surface mesh is 0.004LOA, 0.006LOA and 0.01LOA. The growth rate of the
prismatic layer is set to 1.2. There are 12 layers of prismatic layer. The
J. Cang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115405

Fig. 14. The pressure of the middle section at 0–8◦ attack angle: (a) NACA4404; (b)2# airfoil.

non-dimensional height y+ range of the first layer of prism layer is

εn21 = Sn2 − Sn1 (9)
90–140, which means the thickness of the prismatic layer is
0.01–0.015m. In the simulation process, the y+ value of each position
εn32 = Sn3 − Sn2 (10)
on the hull surface is below 90 (see Fig. 5). The calculated results are
shown in Fig. 6. In comparison, the ratio of resistance and displacement The convergence ratio (11) and accuracy order (12) are calculated as
(R/Δ) is used to represent the resistance performance of the vehicle. The following,
unit of R is kg, so this ratio is a dimensionless value. The test value is also εn21
shown in the figure. According to the results, it can be found that the RG = (11)
εn32
smaller surface mesh size results will be closer to the test value. The
( )
thinner prism layer will also bring the calculated results closer to the test
ln εεn32
value. The calculation result of y+ = 90 shows better accuracy, and the PG =
n21
(12)
difference between 0.004LOA and 0.006LOA is not significant. ln rk
Referring to Richardson ‘s method (Richardson, 1911), and Cuci­ The behaviour of the convergence ratio is important in order to
notta ‘s application (Cucinotta et al., 2018) of this method in numerical understand the simulation tendency. The generalized form of the
research, the convergence ratio and accuracy order of the simulation can Richardson extrapolation (Roache, 1997) method allows evaluating the
be verified (see Table 2). Three different meshes with y+ = 90 are used, uncertainty with the relation (13). FS is the safety factor. It can be a
0.004LOA (fine subscript 1), 0.006LOA (medium 2) and 0.01LOA (coarse constant value as defined by Roache (1998), and also can be a dynamic
3). The constant value rk is the ratio between the number of cells. The value that change in function of the type of convergence of the simu­
solutions of the n-th parameter are respectively: Sn1, Sn2 and Sn3. With lation. In the study of Stern (Stern et al., 2001), the safety factor is equal
these three different solutions, it is possible to calculate the rate change to 1 in all cases where a monotonic convergence is obtained.
for the solutions between the coarse mesh and medium mesh (9) and
between the medium mesh and the fine mesh (10).

8
J. Cang et al.
Fig. 15. Wetted area: (a) NACA4404 with a 2◦ attack angle; (b)Prototype model.
⃒ ⃒
⃒ εn21 ⃒ platform is 0.1–22 m/s, and the error is 0.2%.The test was carried out in
Un = FS ⃒⃒ ⃒ (13)
RG P G − 1⃒
According to the data in Fig. 6, the value of RG is between 0 and 1,
and the Un is far less than 1, which means that the calculation is
monotonically convergent and has well accuracy. Finally, in order to
improve the calculation efficiency, 0.006LOA and y+ = 90 were selected
for calculation in the subsequent study. In this case, the total number of
mesh is about 1.3 × 106.
2.5. Validation of the method
The model in this study has been tested. The test was carried out in
the towing tank of the China Special Vehicle Research Institute. The tank
size is 510m long, 6.5m wide and 6.8m deep. The model of towing test
has the same geometric characteristics as the numerical model. Before
the test, the model was polished and painted to ensure smooth surface.
As shown in Fig. 7, the model is driven by a carriage platform and has
two degrees of freedom: heave and pitch. The speed range of the carriage
9
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115405
a still water environment. In the test, dynamometer, electronic angle
sensor and position sensor are used to measure and record the resistance,
trim angle and heave of the planing craft. The measuring range of the
dynamometer is 40 kg, and the error is 0.3%. The measurement range of
the angle sensor is ±60◦ , and the error is 0.2%. The range of the position
sensor is 1.2 m, and the error is 0.2%.
In Fig. 8 and Table 3, simulation data and test data are compared.
The ratio of heave and initial draught (sinkage/T) is used to define
dimensionless heave. T represents the initial draught of the vehicle
during static floating. And the volume-based Froude number Fr∇ is used
to define the velocity. The formula is as following:
V
Fr∇ = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (14)
1
g(∇)3
where V is the model velocity, g is the acceleration of gravity and ∇ is
the volumetric displacement of the hull.
It can be found that when the Froude number is less than 6.01, the
J. Cang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115405

Fig. 16. The free surface wave shapes between the improved model and the prototype model: (a) Improved model; (b)Prototype model.

resistance simulation value and the test value have very good consis­ reaches − 26.76%, because the heave value is very small at low speed.
tency. With the increase of speed, the resistance error also increases, but This makes tiny data changes also cause large errors. In general, the
it can be maintained at about 10%, which meets the engineering re­ simulation value and the test value have a very similar trend, and the
quirements. The simulation and test values of pitch and heave are also calculation results are very consistent, which can prove the effectiveness
very consistent, with the average error of only 5.90% and − 2.74%, and of the numerical method.
the error can be kept within 10%. When the Froude number is 7.10, the
trim error suddenly increases, which is due to the dolphin movement of
the planing craft and the unstable movement, which has an impact on
the trim measurement. When the Froude number is 1.09, the heave error

10
J. Cang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115405

Fig. 17. Three research schemes of airfoil height:(a)NACA4404; (b)2# airfoil.

Fig. 18. Lift and lift-drag ratio of NACA4404: (a)L/Δ; (b)L/D.

Fig. 19. Lift and lift-drag ratio of 2# airfoil: (a)L/Δ; (b)L/D.

11
J. Cang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115405

Fig. 20. The wetted area of the hull at different airfoil heights when Fr∇ = 2.73: (a)NACA4404; (b)2# Airfoil.

Fig. 21. Comparison of hull resistance and attitude and percentage of drag reduction(NACA4404): (a)Resistance; (b)Trim; (c)Sinkage; (d)Drag reduction percentage.

12
J. Cang et al.
Fig. 22. Comparison of hull resistance and attitude and percentage of drag reduction(2# Airfoil): (a)Resistance; (b)Trim; (c)Sinkage; (d)Drag reduction percentage.
3. Result and discussion
3.1. Study on the attack angle of airfoils in high-speed range
Compared with aircraft or ground effect crafts, the speed of planing
crafts is not high. The maximum speed of the planing craft is similar to
the takeoff speed of the small fixed-wing aircraft. Therefore, the wing
shape is more suitable for selecting low-speed airfoil, which is similar to
the ground effect craft. However, the concept of the wing of the planing
craft studied in this paper is different from that of the wing of the ground
effect craft. Through the aerodynamic lift generated by the ground effect
and the pressure difference between the upper and lower surfaces of the
wing, the hull of the ground effect craft is completely lifted off the water
to obtain higher speed. At the same time, the balance between the lift of
the wing and the gravity of the hull should be considered in the design.
The wing of the planing craft only needs to slightly raise the hull and
change the attitude of the hull with the help of aerodynamic lift. In the
vertical direction, the hull gravity is supported by buoyancy, hydrody­
namic lift and aerodynamic lift.
As the speed increases, the trim angle of the planing craft always
changes. Therefore, the design attack angle of the wing is different from
the actual angle of the wing when the planing craft is sailing. During the
navigation of a planing craft, the aerodynamic lift of the wings will
reduce the trim angle of the planing craft, and the changed trim angle
will in turn affect the aerodynamic lift of the wings. So at the same
speed, the aerodynamic performance of the wing is not only affected by
the design attack angle of the wing itself, but also by the trim angle of the
13
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115405
planing craft. It can be considered that each velocity point may have the
most suitable attack angle. Considering the practicality of actual pro­
duction, designing wings that can automatically adjust the attack angle
is very complex. Therefore, it is necessary to study multiple angles and
select relatively good attack angles through comparison. The basic pa­
rameters of the wing are shown in Table 4. The angles which are studied
are shown in Fig. 9. The selected high-speed range is 4.37–8.74 for
volume Froude number.
The aerodynamic performance of NACA4404 and 2# airfoil is shown
in Figs. 10 and 11, including lift and lift-drag ratio (L/D). In the figure,
the ratio of lift to displacement (L/Δ) is used to represent the lift more
intuitively. The lift of NACA4404 exhibits strong regularity. As the speed
of the planing craft increases, the lift of the wings is improved. Under the
same speed conditions, the lift and attack angle of the wing have a
positive correlation. The lift characteristics of the 2# airfoil and
NACA4404 have the same trend. The special case is that when the attack
angle of the 2# airfoil is 6◦ and the speed of the planing craft increases to
Fr∇ = 7.64, its lift will be greater than that of the 2# airfoil with an
attack angle of 8◦ . The lift drag ratio of NACA4404 and 2# airfoil
significantly decreases with increasing attack angle. When the attack
angle reaches 6 and 8, its lift-drag ratio is only about 10. It can be
considered that increasing the attack angle too much can further
improve the aerodynamic lift, but it will also significantly increase the
air drag.
The resistance, pitch and heave of the improved model with
NACA4404 and 2# airfoil are shown in Fig. 12 and Fig. 13. From these
curves, it can be seen that the motion attitude of the planing craft is
J. Cang et al.
significantly altered by the lift generated by the wings. Due to the
increasing aerodynamic lift of the wings as the speed increases, the hull
of the planing trimaran is significantly lifted, which leads to a significant
increase in its heave value compared to the prototype model. The
increased aerodynamic lift of the wings results in a decrease in the pitch
moment of the hull, especially at high speeds. Overall, the improved
model with added wings can mostly reduce the total resistance of the
planing trimaran at an attack angle of 0–8◦ . But when the attack angle
reaches 6 and 8◦ , although the lift increases relatively, the drag reduc­
tion effect decreases. The resistance at Fr∇ = 4.37 and Fr∇ = 5.5 is very
close to that of the prototype model. The NACA4404 wing with an attack
angle of 8◦ has an effect of increasing drag at Fr∇ = 4.37. After com­
parison, when the attack angle of the NACA4404 wing is 2◦ , it can not
only have good aerodynamic characteristics but also outstanding drag
reduction ability. The 2# airfoil has similar drag reduction effects when
attack angles are 2 and 4◦ . The 2◦ attack angle is more suitable for sit­
uations where Fr∇ is less than 6, and the 4◦ attack angle is more suitable
for situations where Fr∇ is greater than 6.
Fig. 14 shows the pressure of the middle section of NACA4404 and
2# airfoil at 0–8◦ attack angle when Fr∇ = 5.46. From the area of the
color in the figure, the range of the low pressure zone on the upper
surface of the wing and the high pressure zone on the lower surface can
be easily judged. With the increase of the attack angle, the pressure
changes of NACA4404 and 2# airfoil have the same trend. The lower
surface pressure gradually increases, while the upper surface pressure
decreases, and the area of the low pressure zone is also significantly
expanded. This proves that the increase of the attack angle enlarges the
pressure difference between the upper and lower surfaces of the wing,
which is also the fundamental reason for the increase of the lift.
Comparing NACA4404 with 2# airfoil at the same angle of attack, it can
be found that the area of high pressure area and low pressure area of
NACA4404 is slightly larger than that of 2# airfoil. This explains why
the lift of NACA4404 is larger than that of 2# airfoil at Fr∇ = 5.46 in
Figs. 10 and 11.
The wetted area of the improved model and the prototype model at
various speeds is shown in Fig. 15. In Fig. 15(a), the attack angle of
NACA4404 is 2◦ . It can be seen from Fig. 15 that the wetted area changes
of the two models are different. When Fr∇ = 4.37, the size and shape of
the wetted area of the two models are very similar, so the improved
model and the prototype model have similar resistance values. With the
increase of the speed, the size of the wetted area of the prototype model
becomes smaller, the length is significantly shortened, and the width is
not significantly reduced. In contrast, due to the lift of the wing lifting
the hull and generating the pitching moment, the wetted area of the
improved model is longer and the width is significantly reduced. In
general, the improved model has a smaller wet area than the prototype
model. This is also the main reason why the improved model can pro­
duce drag reduction effect.
Fig. 16 shows the comparison of the free surface wave shapes be­
tween the improved model and the prototype model. When the planing
craft sails at high speed, there will be obvious cavity (blue area) in the
rear of the stern. The improved model of the wing has a significant
difference in the length and depth of the cavity. Comparing the proto­
type model and the improved model with the same speed, it can be
found that the cavity length of the improved model is shorter and the
depth is shallower. When Fr∇ reaches 7.64 and 8.74, there is almost no
obvious cavity. It can be considered that the lift generated by the wing
has a great effect on the lifting of the hull, which makes the shape of the
free surface of the stern of the planing craft change significantly.
3.2. Study on the height of airfoils
In this part, the influence of the airfoil height on aerodynamic per­
formance and hull attitude and resistance performance is studied. As
shown in Fig. 17, three heights are selected: h, 0.9h and 0.8h. The
parameter h represents the vertical height from the chordline to the
14
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115405
baseline of the planing craft.
The speed range in the study is Fr∇ = 1.09–8.74, including the low
speed range. From the aerodynamic performance curves of NACA4404
and 2# airfoil in Figs. 18 and 19 it can be seen that the aerodynamic lift
is improved after the height of the airfoil is reduced. It is worth noting
that in the low speed range, reducing the wing height can significantly
increase the lift. This is due to the increase of the pitch angle of the
planing craft at low speed, and part of the airfoil is submerged in the
water. Therefore, the significant increase in lift is mostly hydrodynamic
lift, and it can be considered that the airfoil plays a similar role as the
wave suppression plate. When Fr∇ reaches 3.28, the airfoil is completely
separated from the water surface, and the airfoil no longer generates
hydrodynamic lift. When Fr∇ = 2.73, although the wing with a height of
0.8h can produce greater lift, its resistance is greater because part of
airfoil is in water as Fig. 20 shows. As the height of the NACA4404 airfoil
decreases, a small part of the airfoil is soaked in water at a height of 0.8h.
The 2# airfoil is soaked at a height of 0.9h, and more parts of the airfoil
are obviously soaked at a height of 0.8h. However, the airfoil with a
height of h has been mostly or completely out of the water, its resistance
is much smaller than the airfoil with the height of 0.8h. Therefore, the
lift-to-drag ratio of the h-height airfoil is much larger than that of the
0.8h-height airfoil at this velocity point. This is also the main reason why
the h-height airfoil has a larger lift-to-drag ratio when Fr∇ is less than
2.73. When the airfoil is completely out of the water, it can be consid­
ered that reducing the height is beneficial to improve the lift-to-drag
ratio of the airfoil. In contrast, the lift-to-drag ratio of the 2# airfoil
shows irregularity when Fr∇ is greater than 2.73.
Fig. 21 shows the resistance performance and hull attitude curve of
the improved model with NACA4404 airfoil. From the curve of resis­
tance and drag reduction effect, the airfoil height of 0.8h can signifi­
cantly reduce the resistance in the low speed range. In other speed
ranges, the change of airfoil height has little effect on the resistance, but
it can also be determined that reducing the airfoil height can slightly
reduce the total resistance of the planing craft. The change of airfoil
height has a significant effect on the trim angle of the planing craft in the
low speed range, and has little effect on the trim angle of other speed
range and the heave of the whole speed range. It can be seen from the
trim angle curve in Fig. 21(c) that when the airfoil height is 0.8h, the
trim angle in the low speed range is only about 4◦ , indicating that the
airfoil acting as a wave suppression plate effectively changes the attitude
of the hull and can reduce the resistance by more than 10%. This is of
great benefit to the planing craft crossing the low speed resistance peak.
Fig. 22 shows the resistance performance and hull attitude curve of
the improved model with 2# airfoil. Similar to NACA4404, the change
in the height of the 2# airfoil has almost no significant effect on the
heave and trim angle, including the low speed range. Different from the
NACA4404 airfoil, the 2# airfoil with the height of 0.8h does not
significantly reduce the trim angle of the planing craft in the low speed
range, but makes the trim angle larger. This also makes the resistance of
the airfoil at 0.8h height in the low speed range larger. It is more
noteworthy that the 2# airfoil has no effective drag reduction effect at
low speed, but greatly increases the drag. The 2# airfoil at 0.8h height
increases the resistance by up to 16.3% at Fr∇ = 1.64. This is contrary to
the purpose of the study.
By comparison, it can be concluded that reducing the wing height in
the high-speed range is beneficial to increase the wing lift, but the
increased wing lift is not enough to have a significant impact on the hull
attitude. In the high speed range, reducing the height of NACA4404
airfoil has more drag reduction effect than 2# airfoil. In the low speed
range, reducing the height of NACA4404 airfoil can improve the resis­
tance performance of the hull as a wave suppression plate. The 2# airfoil
has a bad drag increase in the low speed range.
4. Conclusion
In this study, a variety of wings are added to the conventional
J. Cang et al.
planing trimaran, and its hydrodynamic and aerodynamic forces are
studied by numerical simulation. The focus of the research is on the
attack angle and the height of the airfoil. Through the numerical
calculation results of the aerodynamic performance of the wing, the
influence on the attitude and hydrodynamic performance of the planing
craft is analyzed. Based on the analysis of the calculation results, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The numerical method used in this paper is reliable for the simula­
tion of high-speed planing crafts. Its advantages are mainly reflected
in the modeling of hull motion, which is realized through the
coupling iterative solution of control equation and motion equation.
The simulation results are in good agreement with the test results,
and the error can meet the needs of engineering research. This will
reduce the dependence on model tests.
2. Changing the attack angle of the airfoil can affect the attitude and
drag reduction effect of the planing craft in the high speed range.
However, this effect does not change linearly with the increase of
attack angle. Increasing the attack angle of the airfoil can increase
the lift of the airfoil, thereby significantly lifting the hull. For the
NACA4404 airfoil, the drag reduction effect is the best when the
attack angle is 2◦ . For the 2# airfoil, the drag reduction effect is the
best when the attack angle is 4◦ . As the attack angle continues to
increase, the drag reduction effect will decrease, and even at some
speed points, there is almost no drag reduction effect.
3. For NACA4404 and 2# airfoil, in the high-speed range, reducing the
wing height can slightly increase the wing lift and obtain similar drag
reduction effects. The significant difference between the two airfoils
is in the low speed range. The NACA4404 airfoil is very effective in
reducing drag in the low speed range by acting as a wave suppression
plate. When the height is 0.8h and Fr∇ = 1.64, it can reduce the
resistance by 16.5%. However, the 2# airfoil significantly increases
the resistance in the low speed range. When the height is 0.8h and
Fr∇ = 1.64, it increases the resistance by 16.3%. The 2# airfoil shows
excellent aerodynamic performance in the high speed range. How­
ever, after comprehensive comparison, NACA4404 not only has
similar aerodynamic performance in the high speed range, but also
has better performance in the low speed range. Therefore, it can be
considered that the NACA4404 airfoil with a height of 0.8h is more
suitable as an optimal option.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jiuyang Cang: Calculation, Visualization, Writing – original draft.
Hanbing Sun: Writing – review & editing, Software. Jin Zou: Concep­
tualization, Supervision. Lei Wan: Methodology, Investigation. Liru
Zan: Data curation, Resources.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
15
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115405
Acknowledgement
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. However,
we would like to express our sincere thanks to the staff who participated
in the experiment.
References
Cang, J.Y., Zou, J., Sun, H.B., Wan, L., Zan, L.R., 2023. Numerical study on aerodynamic
characteristics of high-speed planing trimaran. Appl. Sci. 13, 3787.
Cucinotta, F., Gugliemino, E., Sfravara, F., Strasser, C., 2018. Numerical and
experimental investigation of a planing Air Cavity Ship and its air layer evolution.
Ocean Eng. 152, 130–144.
Cucinotta, F., Mancini, D., Sfravara, F., Tamburrino, F., 2021. The effect of longitudinal
rails on an air cavity stepped planing hull. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 9, 470.
De Marco, A., Mancini, S., Miranda, S., Scognamiglio, R., Vitiello, L., 2017. Experimental
and numerical hydrodynamic analysis of a stepped planing hull. Appl. Ocean Res.
64, 135–154.
Du, L., Sun, H.B., Jiang, Y., Li, P., 2019. Numerical research on the resistance reduction
of air intake. Water 11, 280.
Ebrahimi, A., Shafaghat, R., Hajiabadi, A., Yousefifard, M., 2022. Numerical and
experimental investigation of the aero-hydrodynamic effect on the behavior of a
high-speed catamaran in calm water. J. Mar. Sci. Appl. 21, 56–70.
Jiang, Y., Sun, H.B., Zou, J., Hu, A.K., Yang, J.L., 2016. Analysis of tunnel hydrodynamic
characteristics for planing trimaran by model tests and numerical simulations. Ocean
Eng. 113, 101–110.
Jiang, Y., Sun, H.B., Zou, J., Hu, A.K., Yang, J.L., 2017. Experimental and numerical
investigations on hydrodynamic and aerodynamic characteristics of the tunnel of
planing trimaran. Appl. Ocean Res. 63, 1–10.
Jiang, J.B., Ding, J.M., Gong, J., Li, L.X., 2022. Effect of hull displacement on hydro-&
aerodynamics of a planing trimaran. Appl. Ocean Res. 120, 103050.
Judge, C., Mousaviraad, M., Stern, F., Lee, E., Fullerton, A., Geiser, J., Schleicher, C.,
Merrill, C., Weil, C., Morin, J., 2020. Experiments and CFD of a high-speed deep-V
planing hull-Part II: slamming in waves. Appl. Ocean Res. 97, 102059.
Karimi, M.H., Mohammad, S.S., Majid, A., 2015. A study on vertical motions of high-
speed planing boats with automatically controlled stern interceptors in calm water
and head waves. Ships Offshore Struct. 10, 335–348.
Kim, Y.S., Hwang, S.K., 2012. An experimental study on air resistance of the planing
boat. In: Proceedings of the Annual Spring Meeting SNAK, Je-Ju, Republic of Korea,
pp. 1238–1245.
Kim, Y.S., Hwang, S.K., 2013. A study on air resistance and greenhouse gas emissions of
an ocean leisure planing boat. J. Korean Soc. Mar. Environ. Energy. 16, 202–210.
Ma, W.J., Sun, H.B., Sun, H.W., Zou, J., Zhuang, J.Y., 2015. Test studies of the resistance
and seakeeping performance of a trimaran planing hull. Pol. Marit. Res. 22, 22–27.
Matveev, K., Dubrovsky, V., 2006. Aerodynamic characteristics of a hybrid trimaran
model. Ocean Eng. 34, 606–620.
Panahi, R., Jahanbakhsh, E., Seif, M.S., 2009. Towards simulation of 3D nonlinear high-
speed vessels motion. Ocean Eng. 36, 256–265.
Park, C.H., Park, H.S., Jang, H.Y., Im, N., 2014. A comparison study on the deck house
shape of high speed planing crafts for air resistance reduction. Int. J. Nav. Archit.
Ocean Eng. 6, 867–875.
Richardson, L.F., 1911. The approximate arithmetical solution by finite differences of
physical problems involving differential equations, with an application to the
stresses in a Masonry dam. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 210,
307–357.
Roache, P.J., 1997. Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics. Annu.
Rev. Fluid Mech. 29, 123–160.
Roache, P.J., 1998. Verification and Validation in Computational Science and
Engineering. Hermosa Publishers, New Mexico.
Stern, F., Wilson, R.V., Coleman, H.W., Paterson, E.G., 2001. Comprehensive approach to
verification and validation of CFD simulations—part 1: methodology and
procedures. J. Fluid Eng. 123, 793.
Wang, W.R., Tie, L.Y., Fan, C.J., Ma, S.B., 2021. Airfoil selection analysis of a wing in
ground wing ship. Ship Engineering 43, 42–46.
Yousefi, R., Shifaghat, R., Shakeri, M., 2013. Hydrodynamic analysis techniques for high-
speed planing hulls. Appl. Ocean Res. 42, 105–113.
Yousefi, R., Shfaghat, R., Shakeri, M., 2014. High-speed hull drag reduction using tunnel.
Ocean Eng. 84, 54–60.
Zou, J., Lu, S.J., Jiang, Y., Sun, H.B., Li, Z.Z., 2019. Experimental and numerical research
on the influence of stern flap mounting angle on double-stepped planing hull
hydrodynamic performance. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 7, 346.