Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Reducing wave impacts on high-speed catamarans through deployment of

ride control: Analysis of full-scale measurements
Ali Alsalah ∗, Damien Holloway, Jason Ali-Lavroff
University of Tasmania, School of Engineering, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Full-scale trials on a 98 m wave piercer catamaran were conducted in the North Sea and North Atlantic
High-speed catamarans region. In order to examine, amongst other things, the effectiveness of the ride control system, the ship was
Slamming deliberately operated in sea conditions likely to induce a large number of wave impact events. Primary ship
Full-scale measurements
motion and structural response parameters, such as angles, rates and accelerations, and strains at various
Ship motions
locations were recorded. Slam and minor wave impact events were identified in the data records and analysed
Ride control deployment
to determine the influence of wave headings, vessel speeds, sea states and ride control system activation on
their occurrence rates and severity. The Empirical Mode Decomposition technique was used to remove both
noise and the rigid body response from the acceleration signals. This was based on prior work by the authors
and found to provide more reliable slam identification than traditional methods. A prediction of extreme slam
occurrences was modelled using logistic regression. A key outcome of the study was the finding that the
activation of ride control significantly reduces the probability of extreme slams occurring.

1. Introduction It is a challenging endeavour to calculate slam loads on large high-

Ferries operating in conditions that expose them to repeated slam-
ming are required to change course or reduce speed to avoid passenger
discomfort and/or structural damage (Fig. 1). It is possible for slam-
ming forces to exceed the vessel’s weight (Thomas et al., 2003b),
resulting in significant hull damage, such as buckling of the hull near
the bridge (Shabani et al., 2018). Minor slamming is unlikely to signif-
icantly impact the structural reliability, but this can still be a fatigue
issue for vessels that are exposed to frequent minor slamming.
Ferry operations are subject to a class service regulation that re-
quires a reduction in speed based on the significant wave height (Par-
nell and Kofoed-Hansen, 2001). Moderate or severe slamming loads
should ideally be avoided, which can reduce the ship transport effi-
ciency, but minor wave impacts typically pose no threat to the structure
or to passenger comfort, and in the interests of transport efficiency
these need not be avoided. As such, it is important to adopt an ap-
proach that is based on a speed reduction criterion determined by the
occurrence rate and severity of slamming loads (Shabani et al., 2018).
This approach ensures maintaining high speed in low-risk environments
as well as avoiding encountering severe slamming events. Therefore,
better knowledge about slamming in different conditions will improve
that guidance.
speed catamarans with a centre bow since there is no established
theoretical method for accomplishing this task. Furthermore, there
is a lack of knowledge regarding the kinematics of slamming events
on large high-speed catamarans. Only full scale measurement and/or
model testing in irregular waves can provide a reliable assessment
of the classification of slamming events and the factors influencing
the occurrences of slamming (Amin et al., 2013). Compared to the
extensive studies that have been conducted on slamming on monohulls,
such as those by Aertssen (1979), Iaccarino et al. (2000), very little
work has been published on full scale measurements of loads and
kinematics of large catamarans (Amin et al., 2013).
Conventional monohulls have had their design principles estab-
lished by classification societies using empirical methods based on
operational experience. Jacobi et al. (2014) states that ‘‘with the rapid
development of high-speed craft classification societies, there has been
a lack of operational data on which to base the structural rules, so
in addition to the empirically-based rules, classification societies have
introduced direct calculation methods’’.
Accurately evaluating wave loads under various conditions neces-
sitates full-scale measurements (Jacobi et al., 2012). However, the
availability of results for high-speed multihulls in the published lit-
erature is limited due to the expensive and confidential nature of

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ali.alsalah@utas.edu.au (A. Alsalah).
URL: https://www.utas.edu.au (A. Alsalah).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.116581
Received 18 August 2023; Received in revised form 27 November 2023; Accepted 13 December 2023
Available online 19 December 2023
0029-8018/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Alsalah et al.
Fig. 1. Damage of bow structure as a consequence of severe slamming loads, for a 127 m vessel (Rothe et al., 2001).
these trials (Kapsenberg, 2011). Instances of such measurements in-
clude those conducted on Incat vessels ranging from 81 to 98 metres
by Roberts et al. (1997), Thomas et al. (2002, 2003a), Amin et al.
(2013), Jacobi et al. (2014), and the study by Steinmann et al. (1999)
on an Austal Ships catamaran measuring 86 metres in length.
Roberts et al. (1997) used Weibull and Gumbel extreme value plots
to extrapolate the stresses experienced during sea trials of two Incat
catamarans (81 and 86 m) to a probability of 10−8 . The study makes
the assumption that the stresses in the extrapolated full scale can be
directly compared to the stresses in the FE model at the same locations
in a quasi-static analysis.
Using the Ochi (1964) extrapolation procedure, which assumes a
linear relationship between stresses and wave height, Steinmann et al.
(1999) also extrapolated the sea trials extreme value stresses with a
probability of 10−8 . This assumption, however, does not hold true for
large high-speed catamarans in moderate to rough seas, when highly
non-linear slamming stresses occur in addition to regular wave loads.
During data post-processing, individual slamming events were detected,
and the peak slam reactions were compared to the quasi-static global
response levels set by classification societies. In both instances, extreme
value analysis was utilised to account for the dynamics of slamming.
The dynamics of slams have also been widely studied without the
use of extrapolation methods. Thomas et al. (2002) investigated the
peak load values experienced by a 96-m Incat catamaran during a
severe slamming event that led to the buckling of the superstructure
shell plates as she made her regular crossing of Cook Strait in New
Zealand. The analysis resulted in a greater understanding of slamming
dynamics, which revealed that the slamming load during this particular
asymmetric event exceeded 1000t.
Due to the difficulties and expense of acquiring useful full-scale
data, many studies have also been done at model scale.
Bouscasse et al. (2013) investigated the seakeeping behaviour of
a high-speed catamaran model in head seas using various types of
waves, including transient, regular, and irregular. To understand how
the catamaran behaves in real operative conditions, they conducted
experiments in mild sea states. These tests were conducted in Sea
States 2 and 3, generated using a Pierson Moskowitz wave spectrum.
The Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) appeared to exhibit weak
dependence on sea states, likely attributable to the gentle conditions
during the irregular wave tests.
The slamming occurrence for a fast-moving ferry was studied by
Dessi and Ciappi (2013), who used an elastic segmentation model tested
in irregular long-crested waves to make their observations. They found
2
Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581
that the assumption of statistical independence was proven to be invalid
since slams tend to cluster into sequences of two or more events. Slam
clustering was found to be significantly influenced by both high speed
and high wave amplitude. However, there was not always a direct
connection between the height of the waves that were experienced
and the severity of the slamming events that occurred. A new criterion
was devised that relied on wavelet analysis of the amidships vertical
bending moment (VBM) to make this determination. Dessi (2014)
proposed a different version of their method for analysing transients
that makes use of filtering and Hilbert transforms. More recently, a
new approach using Machine Learning to identify slamming events in
a scaled model of a fast monohull under various sea states and speeds
was proposed by Dessi et al. (2023).
Recently, studies have been published focusing on investigating
the influence of ride control on a 112 m high-speed wave-piercing
catamaran using 2.5 m hydroelastic segmented model fitted with a ride
control system (AlaviMehr et al., 2015, 2019; Javanmard et al., 2023).
The model was developed with a T-Foil mounted at the central bow
and two stern tabs placed at the transom. Javanmard et al. (2023)
conducted towing tank tests using a scaled model in head seas with
irregular waves at a forward speed of 2.89 m/s. Two significant wave
heights of 60 mm and 90 mm, and a modal period of 1.5 s were
selected. This represents significant wave heights of 2.7 and 4 m, a
period of 10 s and a forward speed of 37 knots at full-scale. In one
condition, the control mode mitigated the peak pitch RAO by 41% and
vertical accelerations by 46%. It was concluded that reducing the ship
motions and accelerations can be achieved by employing RCS with an
appropriate control algorithm. As a result, passenger comfort can be
improved for high-speed catamarans operating in random seas.
At full-scale measurements, Jacobi et al. (2014) examined the num-
ber of slams per hour with a given intensity, and the influence of
heading, speed, wave height and ride control activation. The slamming
criterion was based on the original concept of a stress rate threshold
described by Thomas et al. (2003c). The role of the Ride Control System
(RCS) in reducing slamming stresses was shown to be particularly
significant at high speeds. An overall trend of a weak relationship
between relative vertical velocities and stresses occurring following
slam impacts was observed.
While the above studies have demonstrated that the ride control
has an effect on motions and passenger comfort, they have not com-
prehensively considered the effect of ride control on the probability of
slamming occurring, taking into account other variables such as sea
conditions, nor on the statistical significance of results. Similarly, most
A. Alsalah et al.
Fig. 2. HSV-2 SWIFT (http://www.incat.com.au/).
prior research on slamming focuses on the identification of slams, but
studies on the conditions that differentiate the likelihood of slamming
from minor impacts, are much more limited. One technique for prop-
erly evaluating the statistical significance of the mitigating effects of
ride control on slamming is logistic regression (see Section 5).
Various logistic regression models have been developed in the lit-
erature, highlighting valuable insight in diverse disciplines such as
medicine, engineering, and the natural sciences. Modelling the O-ring
success as a function of ambient temperature following the catastrophic
1986 Challenger space shuttle disaster is a notable case of logistic
regression in engineering (Dalal et al., 1989). The Presidential Com-
mission on the Challenger accident revealed that the correlation of
the O-ring damage in low temperature would have been revealed by
a careful analysis of the flight history (Rogers et al., 1986). The launch
occurred despite a lack of consensus over the interpretation of the
available data, as none of the prior 23 launches occurred at such low
temperatures. Maranzano and Krzysztofowicz (2008) outline this issue
and discusses the difficulty the NASA engineers had as a result of the
extrapolation required to make conclusions using the logistic regression
model.
Logistic regression is ideally suited to the task of considering the
effect of ride control on slamming, and there is a vast resource of
full-scale sea trials data conducted by the US navy on the Incat Swift
HSV-2 catamaran (Fig. 2) available to the authors that could achieve
this purpose.
The current paper aims to address how slamming on large high-
speed catamarans is influenced by the vessel’s speed, heading, ride
control, and wave conditions by investigating sea trials data for the
Incat Swift HSV-2 catamaran (Fig. 2).
To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first application of logistic
regression for this purpose, providing a stronger statistical basis for
the conclusions. The sea trials were deliberately operated in condi-
tions likely to induce slamming. This additional aspect enhances the
paper’s relevance for readers interested in slamming as these trials were
conducted over a broad spectrum of speed, heading and sea conditions.
This investigation contributes important knowledge about the influ-
ence that operational decisions can have on the probability of encoun-
tering severe and detrimental slamming events in different conditions,
through a better understanding of when it is crucial to reduce speed or
change course to avoid both structural damage and passenger discom-
fort, while maintaining optimal efficiency of service via a higher speed
in low-risk environments.
3
Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581
2. HSV-2 Swift Incat catamaran hull 061
2.1. Trial overview
The subject of this full-scale study, HSV-2 SWIFT, is a 98-m wave
piercing catamaran designed, built and operated in accordance with
the HSC Code and DNV HSLC Rules. The main parameters of HSV-2
SWIFT are presented in Table 1. It is the second of a series of high
speed aluminium wave-piercing catamarans constructed by Incat for
evaluation by the U.S. Navy. Propulsion is provided by four Cater-
pillar 3618 diesel engines. The vessel is outfitted with a ride control
system incorporating active transom mounted trim tabs and a forward
centre-mounted retractable T-foil. HSV-2 SWIFT was modified for the
operational evaluation period to provide multiple mission capability.
The more significant modifications were the addition of a flight deck,
helicopter hanger and control station.
The Naval Mine Warfare Command (NMWC) leased the HSV-2
SWIFT with the primary goal of assessing the vessel for mine/anti-mine
warfare. Seakeeping, structural, and performance trials were performed
by The Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) for the Naval Surface
Warfare Center Carderock Division (NSWCCD) (Bachman et al., 2004).
These trials were intended to quantify the operational performance of
the HSV-2 SWIFT in support of the Navy’s assessment of the vessel’s
suitability for future operations. As a result of the trials, an operating
profile would be developed based on the outcomes of seakeeping and
structural performance. Furthermore, long-term design and testing of
subsequent vessels will benefit from this data.
The foundation for evaluating the ship’s seakeeping performance
was monitoring ship motions, ship control operations, and the wave
environment. The sensors were a combination of transducers from
NSWCCD and tie-ins to shipboard equipment. Quantification of the
ship’s motions as a function of sea condition, heading with regard
to the waves, and ship speed are examples of seakeeping objectives.
By comparing ship motions with and without the ride control system
engaged, the effectiveness of the system was evaluated.
Data gathering opportunities for a variety of sea states were pre-
sented by the seakeeping and structural loads trials. In order to meet
the study’s objectives, these needed to take place in a location where
sea conditions were likely to be relatively consistent over several hours
and tens of kilometres, so that runs of significant length could be made
in a variety of headings, typically in the form of octagons. In the North
Sea off the coast of Norway and in the North Atlantic Ocean to the
west and north-west of the United Kingdom, twenty one octagons were
A. Alsalah et al. Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581

Table 1
Main parameters of HSV-2 Swift catamaran.
Incat hull number 061
Length overall 97.22 m
Waterline length 92 m
Beam overall 26.60 m
Hull beam 4.50 m
Deadweight 670 tonnes
Speed 38 knots (operational)
42 knots (lightship)
Ride control system incorporating active transom mounted trim tabs
and a forward centre-mounted retractable T-foil
Propulsion 4x Caterpillar 3618 diesel engines

Table 2
Vertical peak acceleration criteria suggested
by Revolution Design, the ship’s designer.
This was suggested to ensure the safety of
the crew, passengers, and the overall vessel
(Bachman et al., 2004).
Caution 1.55 𝑔
Bow immersion 2.50 𝑔
Threat to structure 3.50 𝑔
conducted. For the purpose of assessing the operational profile of HSV-
2, a test plan was created. Significant amounts of data were collected,
even though not all of the planned parameters were found to fully
characterise the operational profile.
2.2. Data acquisition system
Two data collection computers, one archiving computer, and a data
processing computer were networked together in the data collection
van on the vehicle deck to form the Structural and Seakeeping data
acquisition system. A ‘‘low-frequency’’ system was used to measure
the motion of the ship’s rigid body and the primary structural re-
sponse. All channels dealing with seakeeping, including low-frequency
measurements, had a sample rate of 100 Hz.
The ship’s bow, bridge, LCG, and flight deck all housed sets of three-
axis accelerometers. The LCG accelerometer recorded the roll and pitch
angles and rates, as well as the yaw rate. Aside from tracking the ship’s
motions, data was also collected on the wave environment. At the bow
of the ship, a TSK wave height system was installed.
Through the use of an optical isolator, a connection was also formed
to the GPS system that was installed on the ship. The GPS was used to
record the track, course, and speed channels of the ship. In addition,
the position of the T-foil and the trim tabs, as well as the angle of the
waterjet nozzle and the speed of the waterjet shaft, were all monitored
by the shipboard control systems.
2.3. Test conditions
The duration of each data run differed depending on ship heading
relative to the predominant wave direction. This is vital to record a
sufficient number of wave encounters. More waves are encountered by
the ship in head seas at high speed compared to in following seas at
the same ship speed. As a result, it takes longer to acquire the same
statistical accuracy in following seas than in head seas. To achieve
reasonable statistical accuracy for full-scale trials on vessels of this size,
the data collection time were as follows:
• head and bow sea run times were approximately 20 min each of
data collection time;
• beam sea conditions required approximately 30 min; and
• stern and following sea conditions required closer to 40 min each.
Fig. 3. Heading angles of HSV2 98 m Incat catamaran sea trials outlined in this
study (Almallah et al., 2020).
Details of the run time are provided in Tables 3 and 4.
Five legs of an octagonal pattern were used in a typical test se-
quence, with the vessel operating at a specified speed for a specified
time in each of the five principal wave headings (head, bow, beam,
stern, and following seas). A full octagon, as illustrated in Fig. 3, was
performed when the seas were observed to be confused. These headings
are head, port bow, port beam, port stern, following, starboard stern,
starboard beam, and starboard bow seas. A wave run was performed at
the beginning and end of every set of seakeeping and structural runs
for approximately 20 to 30 min by coming into the seas and slowing to
steerage speed. These wave runs were used to characterise the seaway
for a series of octagon runs. Additionally, this could verified that test
conditions did not change dramatically throughout the course of the
octagon run period and area.
A TSK ultrasonic wave height sensor positioned at the bow was
utilised to gather wave data. It measured the instantaneous relative
distance between the bow and water surface, and subtracted a double-
integrated acceleration signal to obtain the absolute instantaneous
wave height. Subsequent processing involved calculating the power
spectral density of the wave time series. The significant wave height
was then determined as four times the square root of the spectral
variance, or four times RMS (Root-Mean-Square) (Holthuijsen, 2007).
Additionally, the modal period was established as the inverse of the
frequency of the spectral peak.
2.4. Significant wave height and period
It is known that the wave conditions can significantly impact the
occurrence of slamming (Thomas et al., 2009).
As mentioned, averages of the significant wave height and modal
period were measured from the stationary ship prior to and following
the octagon. The values measured prior are the ‘nominal’ values shown
in Tables 3 and 4. However, as wave conditions will always vary
both temporally and spatially, and octagons were spread over tens of
nautical miles and took hours to complete, the significant wave height
and modal period were also calculated (where possible) from the wave
measured from the moving ship, shown in Tables 3 and 4 as ‘actual’
values, providing more relevant values.
The significant wave height is easily and reliably calculated from
the measurements taken during the actual run, being just four times the
RMS value regardless of whether measured in a (constantly) moving or
stationary reference frame. The value obtained from the run is therefore
not only more reliable than the ones taken before and after the octagon,
but it may also provide a qualitative indication of the variability of the
wave conditions over the octagon.
However, calculation of the peak wave period is problematic as it
involved reversing the Doppler shift in the encountered wave frequency
caused by the ship’s forward speed. This was not fully reliable, first

4
A. Alsalah et al. Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581

Table 3
The number of wave impacts and slams in head, bow and beam runs. (Note: Runs 56, 62, 72, 124 and 153 are excluded from the table as the source files were not available).
Run Octagon Heading Speed Nominal Nominal Actual Actual Ride SeaState Duration Wave impacts Slams
𝐻𝑤 (m) 𝑇0 (s) 𝐻𝑤 (m) 𝑇0 (s) control (min) per hour per hour
57 1 P Bow 15 2.56 8.3 2.17 8.9 OFF Low SS 5 30.35 152 6
58 1 S Beam 15 2.56 8.3 2.9 10.5 OFF Low SS 5 30.37 4 0
63 2 S Bow 20 2.53 8.6 3.68 9.6 OFF Low SS 5 20.28 340 30
64 2 S Beam 20 2.53 8.6 2.64 8.9 OFF Low SS 5 30.77 31 0
70 3 Head 20 2.45 8.2 3.18 9.6 ON High SS 4 21.12 367 40
71 3 S Bow 20 2.45 8.2 2.53 8.8 ON High SS 4 19.55 356 37
77 4 Head 10 2.41 8.2 2.63 9.1 ON High SS 4 20.22 33 0
78 4 S Bow 10 2.41 8.2 2.6 9.3 ON High SS 4 20.93 17 0
79 4 S Beam 10 2.41 8.2 2.63 9.2 ON High SS 4 20.18 3 0
92 5 Head 35 2.98 11 3.34 12.5 ON Low SS 5 22.17 352 27
94 5 S Bow 35 2.98 11 2.81 12.9 ON Low SS 5 21.02 186 11
95 5 S Beam 35 2.98 11 2.88 12.8 ON Low SS 5 31.8 21 0
99 6 Head 35 3.00 11.7 2.72 12.1 OFF Low SS 5 19.4 359 28
100 6 P Bow 35 3.00 11.7 2.74 11.7 OFF Low SS 5 23 201 8
101 6 P Beam 35 3.00 11.7 2.65 9.9 OFF Low SS 5 32.65 11 0
106 7 Head 10 2.92 11.7 3.08 11.6 ON Low SS 5 20.03 0 0
107 7 P Bow 10 2.92 11.7 2.92 11.5 ON Low SS 5 21.77 6 0
108 7 P Beam 10 2.92 11.7 3.1 11.8 ON Low SS 5 32.55 0 0
113 8 Head 20 1.98 9.1 1.79 10.8 ON Mld SS 4 26.55 5 0
114 8 S Bow 20 1.98 9.1 1.78 9.8 ON Mld SS 4 20.37 3 0
115 8 S Beam 20 1.98 9.1 1.81 16.8 ON Mld SS 4 38.48 0 0
118 9 Head 20 1.96 8 1.8 10.1 OFF Mld SS 4 22.7 63 0
119 9 P Bow 20 1.96 8 1.8 10.4 OFF Mld SS 4 21.45 8 0
120 9 P Beam 20 1.96 8 1.88 16.9 OFF Mld SS 4 29.92 4 0
126 10 Head 35 1.89 6.8 1.6 7.5 OFF Mld SS 4 19.6 147 3
127 10 S Bow 35 1.89 6.8 1.27 6.3 OFF Mld SS 4 20.28 89 3
128 10 S Beam 35 1.89 6.8 1.05 5.1 OFF Mld SS 4 31.63 2 0
135 11 Head 35 2.04 10.2 1.72 13.1 ON Mld SS 4 20.95 95 0
136 11 S Bow 35 2.04 10.2 1.74 14.7 ON Mld SS 4 20.82 55 0
137 11 S Beam 35 2.04 10.2 1.8 12.8 ON Mld SS 4 29.42 0 0
145 12 Head 35 2.44 10.2 2.28 12.1 ON High SS 4 19.55 279 6
146 12 P Bow 35 2.44 10.2 2.23 14.8 ON High SS 4 20.75 95 0
147 12 P Beam 35 2.44 10.2 1.96 14.5 ON High SS 4 30.13 6 0
152 13 Head 30 2.30 10.2 1.73 12.4 OFF High SS 4 21.97 71 0
154 13 P Beam 30 2.30 10.2 1.99 8.2 OFF High SS 4 19.82 0 0
159 14 Head 30 2.43 10.2 2.28 11.3 OFF High SS 4 20.23 252 6
160 14 S Bow 30 2.43 10.2 2.23 10.2 OFF High SS 4 19.97 132 3
161 14 S Beam 30 2.43 10.2 2.45 11.1 OFF High SS 4 30.28 0 0
163 15 Head 20 2.59 8.5 2.35 11.3 ON Low SS 5 23.33 118 0
164 15 P Bow 20 2.59 8.5 2.75 8.7 ON Low SS 5 20.57 123 6
165 15 P Beam 20 2.59 8.5 2.71 8.8 ON Low SS 5 29.83 2 0
169 15 S Beam 20 2.59 8.5 2.73 17.1 ON Low SS 5 30.95 0 0
170 15 S Bow 20 2.59 8.5 2.59 13.1 ON Low SS 5 19.9 30 0
174 16 Head 35 2.91 10.2 2.39 12.7 ON Low SS 5 20.4 241 0
175 16 S Bow 35 2.91 10.2 2.47 13.6 ON Low SS 5 20.53 20 0
176 16 S Beam 35 2.91 10.2 1.95 20.9 ON Low SS 5 30.33 0 0
180 17 Head 35 2.81 9.7 2.23 12.2 OFF Low SS 5 20.27 266 15
181 17 P Bow 35 2.81 9.7 2.16 9.8 OFF Low SS 5 20.52 246 23
182 17 P Beam 35 2.81 9.7 3.04 7.3 OFF Low SS 5 32.47 102 9
185 18 Head 15 2.67 9.7 2.81 11.4 OFF Low SS 5 19.27 50 0
186 18 S Bow 15 2.67 9.7 2.54 11.6 OFF Low SS 5 19.72 12 0
187 18 S Beam 15 2.67 9.7 2.88 11.5 OFF Low SS 5 30.13 0 0
192 19 Head 30 2.71 8 2.7 11.3 ON Low SS 5 19.72 243 15
193 19 S Bow 30 2.71 8 2.27 10.9 ON Low SS 5 20.12 119 0
194 19 S Beam 30 2.71 8 2.42 8.9 ON Low SS 5 31.3 13 0
199 20 Head 15 2.76 9.1 2.56 10.4 ON Low SS 5 19.65 31 0
200 20 S Bow 15 2.76 9.1 2.59 9.8 ON Low SS 5 20.4 6 0
201 20 S Beam 15 2.76 9.1 3.01 14.6 ON Low SS 5 31.62 0 0
206 21 Head 15 1.80 9.7 1.7 10.2 OFF Low SS 5 21.08 3 0
207 21 S Bow 15 1.80 9.7 1.75 10.1 OFF Low SS 5 19.6 0 0
208 21 S Beam 15 1.80 9.7 1.92 10.6 OFF Low SS 5 30.6 0 0

because the wave must be unidirectional (unlikely in reality) and its
direction known (an estimate was available, reliable to perhaps the
nearest 45◦ ), but secondly and more particularly, because it is not
generally possible to calculate the period for following and stern seas.
This is because the reverse Doppler shift is not unique at low wave en-
counter frequencies, with three solutions being possible.1 In the present
1
Due to the dispersive nature of gravity waves, it required solution of a
quadratic, with the additional complication of a possible sign reversal of one
of the terms.
work, the spectral peak coincided with the region of ambiguity, so no
simplifying assumptions could validly be made about the distribution
of the energy among the three possible solutions.
The paper therefore uses the actual values of significant wave height
for all conditions, and actual modal period for head, bow and beam
seas, but nominal period for following and stern seas, unless otherwise
specified.
As an indication of the variability, Figs. 4(a) and 4(b) respectively
compare the actual and nominal 𝐻𝑤 and 𝑇0 values for head, bow and
beam seas, with a line to show the case of nominal and actual values
being identical. The vast majority of 𝐻𝑤 values were within 0.5 m of

5
A. Alsalah et al.
Fig. 4. Comparisons of nominal and actual significant wave heights and periods.
nominal values, with a greater tendency for the actual value to be lower
(indicated by data points above the ‘nominal = actual’ line) when the
nominal value was less than 2.5 m. This suggests that over the course
of performing an octagon, the smaller seas tended to subside, perhaps
due to being caused by more localised weather events, while the larger
seas tended to be maintained over the whole octagon. Generally though
there was good consistency, so the 𝐻𝑤 values may be regarded as
reliable.
On the other hand, 𝑇0 showed a consistent trend towards the
nominal value under-predicting the actual (data points below the ‘nom-
inal = actual’ line) by up to around 3 s, suggesting that waves generally
developed in length during the octagons. It is noted though that the 𝑇0
6
Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581
value is less critical, as it was found to have less influence on slamming,
at least over the range of values reported in this paper.
3. Methods
3.1. Slam identification
Several approaches have been proposed in the literature to identify
wave impacts on ships since the seminal work of Ochi and Motter
(1973). For example, the research by Thomas et al. (2011) determined
the occurrence of an impact wave event in model tests based on the
simultaneous satisfaction of two criteria: a peak load (at model scale)
greater than 10 N, and a rate of change of load surpassing a threshold
A. Alsalah et al.
of 5000 N/s. These thresholds were defined for a 2.5 m scale model of
a 112 m ship with a sophisticated range of instrumentation. Obviously
specific thresholds will depend very much on the particulars of the ship.
However, the question of thresholds aside, forces cannot be measured
directly in real ships, so motions derived from bow accelerations are
often used as proxies. Acceleration based thresholds have the further
advantage that they are not affected by scaling, since any scaling must
preserve 𝑔, the acceleration due to gravity.
Another common approach to slam identification is to use wavelet
transforms. Amin et al. (2013) applied wavelet analysis to the time-
domain strain gauge data measured on a ship in service, and identified
a more applicable and beneficial method to analyse the impact load
of wave events by utilising the centre-bow surface pressure transducer
data. They found that when waves collided with the underside of the
hull in the archway of a wave-piercing catamaran, the pressure data
would clearly show a sharp peak in value.
Kim et al. (2013) identified wave impacts by cross-correlation of
a continuous Morlet wavelet transform. The method was applied on
a signal that was simulated by a 3D hydroelastic programme, WISH-
Flex. The method was validated through wavelet coherence and the
cospectrum between the identified whipping signal and the system’s
impulse response function.
In related work, Dessi (2014) investigated a new criterion for the
identification of wave impacts based on the analysis of the high-
frequency response. The premise is that significant impacts cause global
structural flexural vibrations. The high frequency response occurs im-
mediately after the wave impact. This investigation applied two differ-
ent methods: (1) wavelet; and (2) band-pass filter and Hilbert trans-
form. The whipping response was calculated using wavelets to show
the peaks, while the high frequency envelope was computed by filtering
and applying the Hilbert transform2 to allow setting of the slamming
threshold.
More recently, Alsalah et al. (2021) proposed employing Empirical
Mode Decomposition (EMD) to detect, identify and characterise slam-
ming, which was shown to be significantly better at classifying events
than traditional methods of slam detection, as it separated the flexural
structural response from other vibrations more clearly and rationally.
EMD is a time-adaptive decomposition of the signal, that recursively
subtracts splines interpolated between the signal peaks and troughs,
decomposing nonlinear and non-stationary signals into approximately
stationary (i.e. narrow-band) time series that represent the time scale of
the signal, called the intrinsic mode functions (IMF). The IMF is a form
of complete, adaptive, and orthogonal expression that is determined by
the original signal rather than by predefined initial basis functions.
With the application of EMD, the vibration signal was decom-
posed into many components that may be grouped unambiguously into
three quite distinct categories: (1) the rigid-body response comprising
two parts: the quasi-static response to the underlying wave spectrum
(hydrostatic) and rigid-body resonance (hydrodynamic); (2) the elas-
tic structural response (hydroelastic); and (3) local high frequency
vibrations and/or noise. It was the second category that responds
significantly to wave impact loads. These signals are shown in Fig. 5 for
a typical cluster of slams identified in the present study. By identifying
the gap between the rigid body and structural resonant frequencies,
a threshold was established to automate the physically rational separa-
tion of this hydroelastic response. This was achieved by determining the
frequency content (power spectral density) of the intrinsic mode func-
tions (IMF) using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and the Cumulative
Spectral Distribution (CSD) by integrating the power spectral density
2
The Hilbert transform enables a time-varying ‘instantaneous amplitude’ or
‘envelope’ of an oscillating signal to be calculated. It does this by calculating
a hypothetical imaginary part to a real signal, which in the frequency domain
would effectively be the Fourier transform of the original signal with a 𝜋∕2
phase shift.
7
Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581
of each IMF. An IMF was classified as flexural when at least 20% of its
energy was above 0.2 Hz.
Wave impact detection methods were then applied to this separated
component. Alsalah et al. (2021) proposed a set of criteria to automate
the wave impacts detection and enable analysis of large datasets, as vi-
sual inspection is time consuming and subjective. Three methods were
proposed to represent the energy content of the hydroelastic response
shown in Fig. 5(c): one based on a moving window RMS shown, and
two using the Hilbert transform. The third of these methods, used in
the present work, is shown in Fig. 5(e), and described here.
Due to its robust and reliable classification and superior perfor-
mance compared to other methods, the EMD separation of Alsalah
et al. (2021) was used in the present work to separate the hydroelastic
response, followed by a Hilbert transform based slam identification.
This method first used the findpeaks function in Matlab. Two criteria
were defined, as illustrated in Fig. 5(e), either of which needed to be
satisfied. First, a detection threshold of 0.01 was set,3 with a minimum
peak separation of 3 s (slightly less than the rigid-body pitch motion
resonance period), then the added second criterion required a minimum
separation of 0.5 s and a minimum prominence of 0.1 𝑔 — note that
the detection threshold of 0.01 in the first criterion is automatically
satisfied with a prominence of 0.1 𝑔 in a strictly positive signal. This
ensures significant impacts are captured even though these impacts
occur within less than 3 s of the previous peak. Examples of additional
impacts identified under the second criterion occur at 13.5, 57.5 and
97 s in Fig. 5(e).
This definition is deliberately inclusive, and identifies many minor
wave impacts, as discussed below.
3.2. Slam classification
In this paper, wave impacts and slams are considered very broadly,
and two types are studied:
1. wave impacts, defined here as any wave impact, however small,
that produces a detectable impulse-like hydroelastic response
when separated using the EMD as described above, whether or
not it is significant in terms of stress or acceleration, and
2. slams, a subset of wave impacts, defined here as more signifi-
cant events producing a total vertical acceleration greater than
1.55 g measured at the bow-mounted accelerometer. 1.55 g is
the ‘caution’ level criterion suggested by Revolution Design (the
ship’s designer) (Bachman et al., 2004), the lowest of three levels
outlined in Table 2, chosen inclusively to identify the maximum
number of events for better statistical analysis.
Generally, wave impacts, as defined above, may either have no
effect on the structure or passenger comfort, or if larger, be of im-
portance primarily only from a fatigue perspective, while significant
slams may potentially be of interest for fatigue, vessel performance,
passenger comfort, and ultimate strength design. Across all runs, a total
of 5383 wave impacts were identified, mostly minor events, some of
which might contribute to fatigue, but including 276 events (around
5.13%) classified as slams under the above definition.
3.3. Logistic regression
In order to draw a meaningful conclusion regarding identifying
and classifying slamming in different operating conditions, logistic
regression is applied to wave impacts and slams identified according
to the definitions in Section 3.2.
3
Units are 𝑔 2 or ×(9.81 m∕s2 )2 , so a threshold of 0.01 equates to an
acceleration of 0.1 𝑔. Visual inspection of Fig. 5 shows that these do all have
an identifiable global response, in spite of having peaks as low as 0.1 𝑔,
illustrating just how sensitive the methods is.
A. Alsalah et al. Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581

Fig. 5. The reconstructed components of the first 100 s of bow acceleration data using the EMD technique: (a) Original signal; (b) high frequency local vibration and noise; (c)
global flexural response to slam impulses; (d) rigid body response; and (e) detected wave impacts based on instantaneous energy using the flexural response to slam impulses of
the reconstructed signal.

Logistic regression is a statistical technique to evaluate the relation- In the present work, logistic regression is used to predict the proba-
ship between various predictor variables and a binary outcome. Logistic bility of having any slams, as a function of speed, wave height and ride
regression estimates the probability of an event occurring. The logistic control system deployment.
regression model is expressed as
[ ] 4. Results
𝑝
ln = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑥1 + 𝛽2 𝑥2 + ⋯ + 𝛽𝑘 𝑥𝑘 (1)
1−𝑝
The EMD approach was used to identify slamming, and events were
Eq. (1) may also be written as
classified according to the definitions in Section 3.2. In the following
𝑒𝛽0 +𝛽1 𝑥1 +𝛽2 𝑥2 +⋯+𝛽𝑘 𝑥𝑘 sections, two analyses are undertaken: first on slams at the ‘caution’
𝑝= (2)
1 + 𝑒𝛽0 +𝛽1 𝑥1 +𝛽2 𝑥2 +⋯+𝛽𝑘 𝑥𝑘 level (greater than 1.55 g at the bow), then on all detected wave impacts
where 𝑝 indicates the probability of an event, 𝛽𝑖 are the regression as defined above, mostly very minor (with hydroelastic responses as
coefficients of the predictor or explanatory variables, and 𝑥𝑖 are the low as around 0.1 g at the bow). Tables 3 and 4 show all wave impacts
explanatory variables. and slams that were identified in all runs.

8
A. Alsalah et al.
Fig. 6. Scatter plot of slamming rate as a function of vessel speed for all 106 runs grouped by vessel heading.
It should be noted that as the original purpose of the sea trials was
to assess the seakeeping performance of the vessel, conditions were
deliberately sought that had the potential to induce significant motions
and slamming, i.e. up to sea state 5.
Note also that in the figures and tables associated with the following
sections, ‘P’ and ‘S’ in the context ‘P Bow’, ‘S Bow’, ‘P Beam’, ‘S Beam’,
‘P Stern’ and ‘S Stern’ refer respectively to port and starboard seas.
This section describes the results qualitatively, while Section 5
presents quantitative conclusions from a more rigorous statistical anal-
ysis.
4.1. Slamming
It was found that the main factors determining whether the vessel
experienced slamming were heading, speed, wave height and deploy-
ment of ride control, with a weaker dependence on the wave peak
period. Figs. 6–9, 11 and 12 are laid out with sub-plots arranged in
the eight heading directions. They also show speed on the horizontal
axis, and where relevant, significant wave height and ride control
deployment via marker colour and shape.
First, consider individual runs with all variables shown together.
Fig. 6 shows that head, port bow and starboard bow are the only
headings where any slamming was experienced by the vessel, apart
from one exception in port beam seas at high speed in very large waves.
This highlights the significance of the vessel headings on the occurence
of the slamming. The number of slams per hour was in the range of 0
to 40. The peak number of impacts occurred during run 70 in head seas
at 20 kn, significant wave height 3.18 m, period 9.6 s, sea state High
SS 4, with the ride control on.
While Figs. 6 also indicates which runs had the ride control system
deployed, the significant ameliorating effect is not at all obvious due
to the large number of variables of importance. Similarly, the effect of
wave height is not clear. As mentioned at the start of Section 4, a proper
statistical analysis is required to differentiate the influences of each
of the numerous variables. Section 5 presents such an analysis, where
the effect of ride control and wave height are shown to be very clear,
and quantitative conclusions can be made. First however, we present
9
Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581
statistics on the overall effect of speed and heading in Fig. 7 without
considering wave height and ride control deployment.
The influence of speed and heading on slam occurrence rates is
easily seen in Fig. 7. This figure shows the same data as Figs. 6, but
represented as the median and inter-quartile range, rather than indi-
vidual runs.4 For three main headings of head, and port and starboard
bow seas higher slamming rates are seen only at the higher speeds,
while for many conditions the slam rate was zero. This shows that a
reduction of speed minimises the possibility of severe slam occurrence.
4.2. Wave impacts
Figs. 8 and 9 show almost identical trends to Figs. 6 and 7. However,
since the inclusion of minor events has greatly increased the total
counts to range between 0 and 367 impacts per hour, some wave
impacts are seen in most categories regardless of the speed. We still
see zero impacts in following and stern seas, and in some runs in beam
seas.
The peak number of impacts appeared again during run 70. Similar
number of wave impacts were encountered during runs 63, 71, 92 and
99 under mostly quite similar conditions. As before, the effect of speed
and heading in Fig. 8 is much clearer than that of wave height and ride
control deployment, but the statistical analysis in Section 5 will bring
the latter into focus.
These results suggests that the threshold or criteria used to define
the magnitude of slam or wave impact used for analysis essentially
only changes the total number of events, but has minimal effect on
the conclusions that can be drawn regarding the influence of different
variables.
4
In these ‘box plots’, the coloured rectangle shows the inter-quartile range,
with a central bar indicating the median, extended lines indicate the data
extremities excluding outliers, and circles indicate outliers.
A. Alsalah et al. Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581

Fig. 7. Comparison between vessel speed and slamming encountered grouped by vessel heading.

Fig. 8. Scatter plot of encountering wave impacts versus vessel speed for all 106 runs grouped by vessel heading.

10
A. Alsalah et al.
Fig. 9. Comparison between vessel speed and detected wave impacts grouped by vessel heading.
4.3. Vessel heading and speed
In summary, Figs. 7 and 9 suggest headings can be sorted into three
groups: (1) head and bow, in which wave slams are probable above
10 kn; (2) beam, in which wave impacts are much less frequent and
occasional slams are possible at higher speed but unlikely at lower
speeds; and (3) stern and following, in which wave impacts and slams
are unlikely at any speed.
It can clearly be seen that as the speed increases in the headings
where slamming and wave impacts occur, the rates increase. Hardly
any wave impacts were encountered at any heading when the speed
was 10 kn, as illustrated best by Fig. 9.
On the other hand, slamming was already significantly more fre-
quent at 20 kn in some headings, and in one case was more frequent
than when operating at greater speed. This not an intuitive result, but is
aligned with finding of Thomas et al. (2003a) that a reduction of speed
in more severe sea states does not necessarily prevent severe slams from
occurring.
4.4. Significant wave height and wave period
It is known that sea state, namely, significant wave height and wave
period, are critical in determining the occurrence of slamming. Hence,
a further analysis was undertaken to calculate the significant wave
height and wave period for every head, bow and beam run to quantify
the influence of sea state on the occurrences of slamming. As speed is
important in the occurrence rate of slamming, speed is also included in
this analysis.
Fig. 10 shows the effect of significant wave height and period on
the number of slams at different speeds. As noted already, it suggests
that speed is a critical factor influencing the rate of slamming, but the
figure seeks to separate its effect from that of wave height and period.
While the influence of the period is inconclusive, the figure shows
overall that the longer the period, the more slamming the vessel
11
Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581
experienced, but the 20 kn condition seems to be an exception to this.
However, it is also noted that there is very little variation in 𝑇0 in
the 20 kn runs, and the slamming rate here is more likely to be a
response to the wave height. Fig. 10 also shows, as expected, that when
the significant wave height is large, the rate of slamming increases.
However, due to the large number of variables, Section 5.2 explores the
influence of significant wave height on slam occurrence using statistical
methods.
4.5. Ride control system
Although Figs. 6 and 8 identify which runs had the ride control sys-
tem deployed, the effectiveness of the ride control is not immediately
clear from these figures. However, it was observed that the number of
slams and wave impacts did decrease when the ride control system was
deployed. To quantify the benefit, a more rigorous statistical analysis
of the effectiveness of the ride control is required. This is explored in
Section 5, which very clearly shows the benefits of the ride control
system.
5. Statistical models
5.1. Models based on Poisson regression
A prediction model based on Poisson regression (Fig. 11) is used to
model the rate of slamming that could be experienced by the vessel.
In this figure, hollow circles indicate mean observed rates derived
directly from the data, and solid circles represent the statistical model
predictions.
The model, as expected from the earlier qualitative observations,
predicts that there would be no slamming for stern and following
headings. In bow seas the slamming rates are very similar regardless
of whether it is port bow or starboard bow, as would be expected by
symmetry. The model also predicts that the ride control is very effective
A. Alsalah et al. Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581

Fig. 10. The influence of speed, significant wave height and period on the number of slams per hour.

Fig. 11. Prediction of the number of slams that could be encountered using Poisson regression.

in reducing slamming (the next section shows that this reduction could
be as great as 35% when the vessel is operating in head or bow seas).
The model confirms quantitatively that in some instance there could
be more frequent slamming experienced at 20 kn than 30 kn and
35 kn (also noted in Section 4.3 based on qualitative observation). It
is predicted that there would be almost no slamming when the vessel
operates at 10 kn and 15 kn. When the speed of the vessel is 20 kn or
greater, the vessel could experience between 8 to 11 slams per hours
when the ride control is in operation. Greater number of slams would
be experienced if the ride control is not in operation, which could be
as high as 15 slams per hour.
Poisson regression is also applied to the wave impact data, with
findings corresponding closely to those regarding slamming.
Fig. 12 shows the Poisson regression prediction of the expected
number of minor wave impacts encountered by the vessel in different
conditions. In spite of much higher overall numbers compared to
slamming, the model indicates that there would be no wave impacts
experienced if the vessel were to operate in stern or following seas,
and very few at low speed in head and bow seas. The expected number
of wave impacts per hour is just 5 when the speed is 10 kn, but rises
to 250 when the vessel is operating under high speed with ride control
not in operation.

12
A. Alsalah et al. Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581

Fig. 12. Prediction of the number of wave impacts that could be encountered using Poisson regression.

Note, these tests were intentionally conducted in exceptionally
rough seas ranging up to sea state 5, and this model predicts all wave
impacts regardless of how significant the impact is. These impacts may
not be of significance in terms of the overall effect on the passenger
comfort or the reliability of the vessel.
5.2. Models based on logistic regression
As severe slams play a critical part in the operation of vessels,
a further prediction model was used to estimate the probability of
encountering at least one slam at the ‘caution’ level when the vessel
is operated in head or bow seas of sea state 4 to 5. Three models
are presented showing the logistic regression model prediction for this
scenario in head seas, and starboard and port bow seas:
• Model 1 in Fig. 13, Table 5, and Eq. (3) based on vessel speed (𝑥1
in kn) and ride control deployment (𝑥2 = 0 for ‘off’ or 1 for ‘on’)
𝑒−2.577+0.118𝑥1 −1.315𝑥2
𝑝(𝑥)
̂ = ; (3)
1 + 𝑒−2.577+0.118𝑥1 −1.315𝑥2
• Model 2 in Fig. 13, Table 5, and Eq. (4) based on the significant
wave height (𝑥1 in m) and ride control deployment (𝑥2 )
𝑒−3.571+1.850𝑥1 −1.982𝑥2
𝑝(𝑥)
̂ = ; (4)
1 + 𝑒−3.571+1.850𝑥1 −1.982𝑥2
• and Model 3 in Fig. 13, Table 5 and Eq. (5) based on the
vessel speed (𝑥1 ), significant wave height (𝑥2 ) and ride control
deployment (𝑥3 )
𝑒−11.291+0.187𝑥1 +3.342𝑥2 −2.760𝑥3
𝑝(𝑥)
̂ = . (5)
1 + 𝑒−11.291+0.187𝑥1 +3.342𝑥2 −2.760𝑥3
Model 1, which is based on the vessel speed, clearly shows in Fig. 13
that the probability of encountering slams increases as the speed of the
vessel increases. For example, with the ride control switched off, there
is around a 45% chance of encountering at least one minor slam when
the vessel is operating at 20 kn, which rises to 85% when the vessel is
operating at 35 kn. Similar rises are seen with the ride control system
on.
The figure also clearly shows that the ride control system greatly
helps reducing the probability of encountering a slam. Approximately
30% reduction in the probability of encountering a slam when the
ride control system is deployed is obtained consistently at all speeds.
This shows the importance of the ride control system in reducing the
occurrence of slamming.
Model 2, predicting the probability of encountering at least one slam
based on the significant wave height, shown in the centre panel of
Fig. 13, exhibits a similar trend to Model 1 based on the vessel speed. As
the significant wave height increases, the probability of encountering
at least one slam increases. The activation of the ride control decreases
the probability of encountering at least one slam by at least 25%.
Model 3 in Fig. 13 yields results consistent with those of models 1
and 2. It demonstrates that the likelihood of encountering at least one
slam increases with both higher speed and significant wave height, but
the activation of ride control reduces this probability. This reaffirms
the earlier findings highlighting the effectiveness of ride control in
mitigating the risk of slams. The model suggests that, at a speed of
25 kn and a significant wave height of 3 m, activating the ride control
can decrease the probability of encountering slams from 97% to 66%.
Notably, significant wave height plays a pivotal role; encountering
smaller waves reduces the slam probability to 6% with active ride
control. Furthermore, reducing the speed to 10 knots with a 2 m
significant wave height and active ride control almost eliminates the
probability of encountering slams, reducing it to nearly 0%.
Model 3 highlights how ride control achieves a comparable effect
to reducing the wave height by 0.83 m (derived by dividing the
coefficients of 𝑥3 and 𝑥2 ). This translates to a roughly 60% decrease

13
A. Alsalah et al. Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581

Table 4
The number of wave impacts and slams in stern and following runs. (Note: Runs 59, 96 and 111 are excluded from the table as the source files were not available).
Run Octagon Heading Speed Nominal Nominal Actual Ride SeaState Duration Wave impacts Slams
𝐻𝑤 (m) 𝑇0 (s) 𝐻𝑤 (m) control (min) per hour per hour
60 1 Following 15 2.56 8.3 3.37 OFF Low SS 5 40.08 0 0
65 2 S Stern 20 2.53 8.6 2.72 OFF Low SS 5 39.98 0 0
66 2 Following 20 2.53 8.6 2.10 OFF Low SS 5 40.95 0 0
73 3 S Stern 20 2.45 8.2 3.09 ON High SS 4 39.2 0 0
74 3 Following 20 2.45 8.2 2.26 ON High SS 4 42.12 0 0
80 4 S Stern 10 2.41 8.2 3.27 ON High SS 4 40.3 0 0
81 4 Following 10 2.41 8.2 2.89 ON High SS 4 21.04 0 0
97 5 Following 35 2.98 11 1.32 ON Low SS 5 40.3 1 0
102 6 P Stern 35 3.00 11.7 1.98 OFF Low SS 5 42.15 0 0
103 6 Following 35 3.00 11.7 1.67 OFF Low SS 5 23.96 0 0
110 7 P Stern 10 2.15 9.1 2.59 ON Low SS 5 40.2 0 0
116 8 S Stern 20 1.98 9.1 1.74 ON Mld SS 4 43.15 0 0
121 9 P Stern 20 1.96 8 1.67 OFF Mld SS 4 42.88 0 0
122 9 Following 20 1.96 8 1.74 OFF Mld SS 4 49.83 1 0
123 9 S Stern 20 1.96 8 1.86 OFF Mld SS 4 39.2 0 0
129 10 S Stern 35 1.89 6.8 1.30 OFF Mld SS 4 36.11 0 0
130 10 Following 35 1.89 6.8 1.23 OFF Mld SS 4 39.92 0 0
138 11 S Stern 35 2.04 10.2 1.54 ON Mld SS 4 39.85 2 0
139 11 Following 35 2.04 10.2 1.50 ON Mld SS 4 41.5 1 0
148 12 P Stern 35 2.44 10.2 1.51 ON High SS 4 40.82 0 0
149 12 Following 35 2.44 10.2 1.25 ON High SS 4 54.32 0 0
155 13 P Stern 30 2.30 10.2 2.40 OFF High SS 4 39.5 0 0
156 13 Following 30 2.30 10.2 1.56 OFF High SS 4 38.48 0 0
166 15 P Stern 20 2.59 8.5 2.88 ON Low SS 5 39.98 0 0
167 15 Following 20 2.59 8.5 2.84 ON Low SS 5 12.45 0 0
168 15 S Stern 20 2.59 8.5 3.18 ON Low SS 5 43.63 6 0
177 16 S Stern 35 2.91 10.2 1.67 ON Low SS 5 39.93 0 0
178 16 Following 35 2.91 10.2 2.02 ON Low SS 5 40.55 0 0
183 17 P Stern 35 2.81 9.7 2.56 OFF Low SS 5 28.25 0 0
188 18 S Stern 15 2.67 9.7 3.19 OFF Low SS 5 39.57 0 0
189 18 Following 15 2.67 9.7 3.25 OFF Low SS 5 39.83 0 0
195 19 S Stern 30 2.71 8 2.13 ON Low SS 5 39.8 2 0
196 19 Following 30 2.71 8 1.59 ON Low SS 5 43.82 0 0
202 20 S Stern 15 2.76 9.1 3.05 ON Low SS 5 40.15 0 0
203 20 Following 15 2.76 9.1 3.15 ON Low SS 5 39.8 0 0
209 21 S Stern 15 1.80 9.7 2.08 OFF Low SS 5 39.38 0 0
210 21 Following 15 1.80 9.7 1.92 OFF Low SS 5 41.05 0 0

Fig. 13. Probability of encountering at least one slam per run versus speed, significant wave height, and speed and significant wave height on logistic regression models.

in the probability of encountering a single slam in 2 m waves at speeds 6. Discussion

ranging from 30 to 35 kn, or in 3 m waves at 15 kn. When navigating
in 2 m waves, the use of ride control maintains the probability of This study has provided an insight into the influence of the key
slamming below 5% up to speeds of about 24 kn. parameters on the occurrences of wave impacts and slamming on

14
A. Alsalah et al. Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581

Table 5 Conversely, encounters with slams and wave impacts are more likely in
Results from multivariate logistic regression models.
bow and head seas. Notably, in beam seas, wave impacts occur at high
Model Term 𝛽 estimate 𝑃 -value speeds, while slams are observed in port beam but not starboard beam.
Intercept −2.577 0.034 These results may be attributed to changes in vessel heading and/or
1 Speed 0.118 0.009
wave conditions, particularly given the isolated occurrence at 35 kn.
Ride control: on −1.315 0.087
It is noteworthy that at 20 kn, the vessel experienced a significantly
Intercept −3.571 0.061
higher number of slams than at 30 kn, hence the Poisson model predicts
2 Significant wave height 1.850 0.037
Ride control: on −1.982 0.022 a correspondingly greater incidence, but logistic regression models
Intercept −11.292 0.003
suggest this may actually be a wave height effect.
3 Speed 0.187 0.003 The logistic regression analysis effectively illustrates the signifi-
Significant wave height 3.342 0.010 cance of speed, significant wave height, and ride control activation
Ride control: on −2.760 0.018 in influencing the likelihood of encountering slamming. Notably, ride
control activation consistently reduces the probability of experiencing
slamming, a pattern that holds true as vessel speed and significant wave
catamarans when navigating rough seas. Given the complex and unpre- height increase. These findings are particularly evident in all three
dictable nature of this field, the study provides an initial understanding models, with the third model exhibiting statistical significance.
of these parameters rather than a definitive conclusion on their com- In all models, the 𝑝-values associated with heading, significant
plete influence on wave impacts. It is important to note that to authors’ wave height, and ride control activation were statistically significant
knowledge, this is one of the first papers to include this broad spec- (𝑝-value < 0.05), except for the ride control variable in Model 1 in
trum of vessel’s speed, heading, ride control, and wave conditions Fig. 13 and the intercept in Model 2 in Fig. 13, where the 𝑝-values
for full-scale ship operated in rough seas, encompassing the following were 0.087 and 0.061, respectively. While these specific 𝑝-values fall
ranges: between 5% and 10% and do not reach the 5% significance level,
they still indicate an observable effect. This is a reasonable outcome,
• Speed: 10–35 kn considering the inherent variability in sea conditions and the time gaps
• Heading: head, bow, beam, stern and following seas between different runs during which the vessel may encounter varying
• Nominal 𝐻𝑤 : 1.8–3.5 m wave and environmental conditions. It is important to highlight that
• Nominal 𝑇0 : 6.8–11.7 s in Model 3 the effect of all predictor variables is significant at the 2%
• Sea State: mid SS 4 to low SS 5 level.
• Activation of ride control.
7. Conclusion
While the qualitative findings are likely to apply to any ship, a limi-
tation is that the quantitative findings should not be generalised beyond
the particular vessel employed in the trial. To arrive at a definitive This paper presents an in-depth analysis of the rate of slam occur-
conclusion regarding the impact of speed, heading, wave conditions, rences on high-speed catamarans through full-scale measurements. This
and ride control activation, additional trials involving different vessels analysis is based on the influence of wave headings, vessel speeds, sea
may be necessary. states and ride control system activation on the slam occurrence rates
Exploring other geographical areas that yield distinct sea states and severity. The results of this analysis have demonstrated the success
could be a potential avenue for further research, although it may not in identifying impact loads using an accelerometer using the EMD tech-
always be feasible due to ABS (American Bureau of Shipping) opera- niques (Alsalah et al., 2021) regardless of the heading. Additionally, the
tional guidelines, which were followed during this trial. The nominal importance of wave environments and operating conditions on the slam
and actual wave heights can undergo significant variations between the occurrence rates and severity has been demonstrated.
initial measurement of wave conditions and the actual runs during the The study conducted two separate analyses: the first focused on
octagon, though, with the exception of the period in following seas, ‘caution’ level slams and higher (those exceeding 1.55 𝑔 at the bow),
these can be calculated from run data. However, this highlights the and the second analysed all detected wave impacts, including minor
dynamic nature of sea conditions during an octagon test, making it ones with hydroelastic responses as low as around 0.1 𝑔 at the bow.
challenging to control the precise conditions for a trial. Consequently, The results are first presented qualitatively, with very consistent find-
a considerable number of runs must be performed to encompass a ings between the two data sets. Then quantitative conclusions were
broad range of parameters, even though this may not be cost-effective. provided by two types of statistical regression analyses.
A proper statistical analysis also helps to validly compare runs with The results highlighted that the vessel’s heading, speed, and the use
slightly different sea conditions. of ride control all significantly affected slamming. The wave conditions
The study reveals that increasing speed generally leads to a higher also played a role, though to a lesser extent. Minor wave impacts, while
occurrence of slams and wave impacts, with an exception noted at significantly more numerous due to the inclusion of minor wave events,
20 kn. This exception could be attributed to wave conditions, as the followed a similar trend to slamming in terms of heading, speed, and
observed unexpected increase in slams coincided with high significant the effect of ride control.
wave heights and short wave periods. When operating in beam, stern, The study emphasised the importance of heading in the slamming
and following seas, speed seems to have a relatively lesser impact. phenomenon, with head, port bow, and starboard bow headings expe-
Consequently, the primary factors influencing the incidence of slams riencing slamming, while no slamming occurred in stern or following
in a given sea are the vessel’s heading, followed by speed. However, it seas. The data similarly indicated that stern and following seas were
is worth noting that some slams were observed in beam seas, though less prone to minor wave impacts, while head and bow seas were more
rare, and these instances coincided with the presence of large signif- susceptible, especially at higher speeds.
icant wave heights. Another potential explanation is a change in sea The speed of the vessel had a significant impact on slamming rates,
conditions, where the vessel’s heading may not have remained precisely and the study found as expected that reducing speed could minimise the
at beam sea (90◦ ). risk of severe slamming, although there were instances where slamming
The findings align with our expectations based on the results of slam was more frequent at lower speeds, though probably due to a higher
and wave impact analyses. Poisson regression indicates that encoun- wave height. Linear regression Model 1 predicted that the probability
tering slams and wave impacts in stern and beam seas is improbable. of encountering at least one slam can drop around 50% with a 15–20 kn

15
A. Alsalah et al.
speed reduction over the tested range of variables, and even in head
and bow seas slams were almost absent at 15 kn and below.
Significant wave height and wave period were identified as impor-
tant factors in slamming occurrences. A shorter wave period and larger
significant wave height increased the likelihood of slamming.
As shown in Sections 4 and 5, the effect of ride control is not always
clear in a qualitative assessment of slamming rate data due to the
large number of variables, but was quite unambiguously identified by
appropriates statistical analyses such as Poisson regression and logistic
regression models, employed here to predict respectively slamming
or minor impact rates, and the likelihood of encountering slams. The
statistical analyses also confirmed earlier qualitative conclusions that
higher vessel speeds and larger significant wave heights were correlated
with an elevated probability of encountering slamming events.
Deployment of ride control was shown in the conditions tested
to achieve a reduction in slamming comparable to a 0.83 m drop in
significant wave height or 15 kn speed reduction. The reduction was
up to 60%, emphasising the pivotal role of ride control in improving
passenger comfort and bolstering vessel reliability in challenging sea
conditions.
The above results on the effectiveness of the ride control system
were found to be statistically significant, and highlight the imperative
for rigorous statistical analyses in interpreting sea trials results, which
is a significant novelty of the paper.
It is emphasised that, for testing purposes, the ship in this study
was deliberately operated in conditions likely to induce slamming, but
the knowledge gained will help provide operators of similar vessels
with knowledge of how to avoid slamming in a commercial context
and assess the reliability of ride control deployment, which can help
passenger comfort.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ali Alsalah: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Val-
idation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. Damien Holloway:
Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Jason Ali-Lavroff: Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
References
Aertssen, G., 1979. An estimate of whipping vibration stress based on slamming data
of four ships. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 26 (294), 23–31.
AlaviMehr, J., Davis, M., Lavroff, J., 2015. An experimental investigation on slamming
kinematics, impulse and energy transfer for high-speed catamarans equipped with
ride control systems. Int. J. Marit. Eng. 157, A175 – A187.
AlaviMehr, J., Lavroff, J., Davis, M., Holloway, D., Thomas, G., 2019. An experimental
investigation on slamming kinematics, impulse and energy transfer for high-speed
catamarans equipped with ride control systems. Ocean Eng. 178, 410–422.
Almallah, I., Lavroff, J., Holloway, D., Shabani, B., Davis, M., 2020. Global load
determination of high-speed wave-piercing catamarans using finite element method
and linear least squares applied to sea trial strain measurements. J. Marine Sci.
Technol. 25 (3), 901–913.
Alsalah, A., Holloway, D., Mousavi, M., Lavroff, J., 2021. Identification of wave impacts
and separation of responses using EMD. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 151, 107385.
Amin, W., Davis, M., Thomas, G., Holloway, D., 2013. Analysis of wave slam induced
hull vibrations using continuous wavelet transforms. Ocean Eng. 58, 154–166.
16
Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116581
Bachman, R., Woolaver, D., Powell, M., 2004. HSV-2 Swift Seakeeping Trials. Report
No: NSWCCD-50-TR–2004/052, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Cardrock Division,
US Navy, West Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Bouscasse, B., Broglia, R., Stern, F., 2013. Experimental investigation of a fast
catamaran in head waves. Ocean Eng. 72, 318–330.
Dalal, S., Fowlkes, E., Hoadley, B., 1989. Risk analysis of the space shuttle:
Pre-challenger prediction of failure. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 84 (408), 945–957.
Dessi, D., 2014. Whipping-based criterion for the identification of slamming events. Int.
J. Naval Architect. Ocean Eng. 6 (4), 1082–1095.
Dessi, D., Ciappi, E., 2013. Slamming clustering on fast ships: From impact dynamics
to global response analysis. Ocean Eng. 62, 110–122.
Dessi, D., Sanchez-Alayo, D., Shabani, B., Ali-Lavroff, J., 2023. Bow slamming detection
and classification by machine learning approach. Ocean Eng. 287, 115646.
Holthuijsen, L., 2007. Waves in Oceanic and Coastal Waters. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Iaccarino, R., Monti, S., Sebastiani, L., 2000. Evaluation of hull loads and motion
of a fast vessel based on computations and full scale experiments. In: The 13th
International Conference on Ship and Shipping Research (NAV 2000). Venice, Italy,
pp. 5.9.1–5.9.10.
Jacobi, G., Thomas, G., Davis, M., Davidson, G., 2014. An insight into the slamming
behaviour of large high-speed catamarans through full-scale measurements. J.
Marine Sci. Technol. 19 (1), 15–32.
Jacobi, G., Thomas, G., Davis, M., Holloway, D., Davidson, G., Roberts, T., 2012. Full-
scale motions of a large high-speed catamaran: the influence of wave environment,
speed and ride control system. Int. J. Marit. Eng. 154 (A3), A143–A155.
Javanmard, E., Mehr, J., Ali-Lavroff, J., Holloway, D., Davis, M., 2023. An experimental
investigation of the effect of ride control systems on the motions response of
high-speed catamarans in irregular waves. Ocean Eng. 281, 114899.
Kapsenberg, G., 2011. Slamming of ships: where are we now?. Philos. Trans. Ser. A
Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 369, 2892–2919.
Kim, Y., Kim, J., Kim, Y., 2013. Whipping identification of a flexible ship using wavelet
cross-correlation. Ocean Eng. 74, 90–100.
Maranzano, C., Krzysztofowicz, R., 2008. Bayesian reanalysis of the challenger o-ring
data. Risk Anal. 28 (4), 1053–1067.
Ochi, M., 1964. Prediction of occurrence and severity of ship slamming at sea. In:
Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Bergen, Norway, pp.
545–596.
Ochi, M., Motter, L., 1973. Prediction of slamming characteristics and hull responses
for ship design. Soc. Naval Architect. Marine Eng. Trans. 81, 144–176.
Parnell, K., Kofoed-Hansen, H., 2001. Wakes from large high-speed ferries in confined
coastal waters: Management approaches with examples from New Zealand and
Denmark. Coastal Manag. 29 (3), 217–237.
Roberts, T., Watson, N., Davis, M., 1997. Evaluation of sea loads in high speed
catamarans. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation, Vol. 1. FAST1997, pp. 311–316.
Rogers, W., Armstrong, N., Acheson, D., Covert, E., Feynman, R., Hotz, R., Kutyna, D.,
Ride, S., Rummel, R., Sutter, J., Walker, A., Wheelon, A., Yeager, C., 1986. Report
to the President by the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger
Accident. NASA, Washington D.C., USA.
Rothe, F., Sames, P., Schellin, T., 2001. Catamaran wetdeck structural response to
wave impact. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation,Vol. 3. FAST2001, Southampton, UK, pp. 125–133.
Shabani, B., Lavroff, J., Holloway, D., Davis, M., Thomas, G., 2018. The effect of centre
bow and wet-deck geometry on wet-deck slamming loads and vertical bending
moments of wave-piercing catamarans. Ocean Eng. 169, 401–417.
Steinmann, P., Fach, K., Menon, K., 1999. Global and slamming sea loads acting on
an 86 m high speed catamaran ferry. In: Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Fast Sea Transportation. FAST1999, Seattle, USA, pp. 709–718.
Thomas, G., Davis, M., Holloway, D., 2003a. The whipping vibration of large high
speed catamarans. Int. J. Maritime Technol. 145, 289–304.
Thomas, G., Davis, M., Holloway, D., Roberts, T., 2002. Extreme asymmetric slam loads
on large high speed catamarans. In: Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on High
Speed Marine Vehicles. Castello di Baia, Italy, pp. I.15 — I.23.
Thomas, G., Davis, M., Holloway, D., Roberts, T., 2003b. Transient dynamic slam
response of large high speed catamarans. In: Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Fast Sea Transportation. FAST2003, Ischia, Italy, pp. B1–B8.
Thomas, G., Davis, M., Holloway, D., Roberts, T., Matsubara, S., Lavroff, J., Amin, W.,
Chamberlin, K., Dove, T., 2009. Characterisation of slam events of a high-speed
catamaran in irregular waves. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference
on Fast Sea Transportation. FAST2009, Athens, Greece, pp. 177–188.
Thomas, G., Davis, M., Holloway, D., Watson, N., Roberts, T., 2003c. Slamming response
of a large high-speed wave-piercing catamaran. Marine Technol. 40 (2), 126–140.
Thomas, G., Winkler, S., Davis, M., Holloway, D., Matsubara, S., Lavroff, J., French, B.,
2011. Slam events of high-speed catamarans in irregular waves. J. Marine Sci.
Technol. 16 (1), 8–21.