Ocean Engineering 94 (2015) 103–110

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Numerical investigation of a stepped planing hull in calm water

Payam Lotfi a, Mahmud Ashrafizaadeh a,n, Reza Kowsari Esfahan b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran
b
Center of Excellence in Energy Conversion, School of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran 11155-9567, Iran

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Stepped planing hulls enable the feasibility of running at relatively low Drag-Lift ratio by means of
Received 1 September 2013 achieving more optimal trim angle at high speeds. Currently, there is no precise method to analyze these
Accepted 30 November 2014 hulls over the full range of operating speeds. In this study, a three-dimensional computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) model using volume of fluid (VOF) approach is presented for examining the
Keywords: characteristics of a planing hull having one transverse step. A procedure is presented to transform a
Planing hull series of fixed-position simulations into a free to heave and pitch simulation. Resistance, lift, running
Transverse step draft, dynamic trim angle, and wetted area are compared with available experimental data and those of a
Numerical simulation semi-empirical method at volumetric Froude number in the range of 2.41–7.12. Centerline wake profile
Hydrodynamics
and reattachment location are compared with those of empirical equations. Wetted area at forebody
Running attitude
chines-dry mode is qualitatively compared with a typical under water photograph of a stepped hull. The
quantitative and qualitative results are found in acceptable correlation with experimental data, hence
they can be reliably used in the stepped hull hydrodynamic investigation.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Thus, as the complexities of modern hulls continue to increase, more

Planing hulls use hydrodynamic lift force to equilibrate 50–90
percents of their weight when reaching enough speed (Doctors,
1985), which makes it possible to achieve high speeds. However,
Drag-Lift ratio of conventional planing hulls increases rapidly with
the increment of speed. Using stepped planing hulls with trans-
verse discontinuity at the bottom of the hull may be a solution to
this problem.
For a stepped hull, flow separation occurs at step location and
then reattach at aftbody. This phenomenon reduces the wetted
area and may result in a Drag-Lift ratio reduction (Faltinsen, 2006).
In addition, the optimum trim angle of a specific stepless planing
hull, investigated by Savitsky and Morabito (2010), is approxi-
mately 41 in which the minimum Drag-Lift ratio occurs. In the
conventional planing hulls, an increment of speed reduces the
trim angle which results in a shift from the optimum design.
Stepped planing hulls manage to increase trim angle to make a
lower Drag-Lift ratio possible at high speeds while keeping away
from porpoising instability (Savitsky and Morabito, 2010).
Hydrodynamic analysis of high-speed planing hulls is generally
limited to experimental tests, analytical, and empirical methods.
However, analytical methods are only available for simple geometries,
on the other hand, towing tank tests are costly and time-consuming.
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 98 311 3915211; fax: þ98 311 3912628.
E-mail address: mahmud@cc.iut.ac.ir (M. Ashrafizaadeh).
efficient tools are required. Numerical methods are introduced as a
useful tool to solve the mentioned drawbacks. The use of this tool
alongside towing tank tests, reduce the number of tests and provide a
validation for numerical results. Although numerical methods have
been used for conventional planing hulls before, it is rare to
investigate stepped planing hulls via this tool. Moreover, previous
studies are mostly restricted to two-dimensional simulations at fixed
draft and trim angle. Recently, an empirical method is also used to
predict the characteristics of prismatic stepped hulls.
Firstly, Caponnetto (2001) used a Reynolds-averaged Navier-
Stokes (RANS) solver to investigate a planing hull in which the
displacement and center of gravity are unknown. For each speed,
he performed the simulations 9 times for a combination of 3 trim
angles and 3 sinkages. An interpolation is then used to specify the
running attitude of the vessel. He also compared the longitudinal
center of pressure (LCP) and the lift value with those of the
Savitsky's method. Brizzolara and Serra (2007) numerically stu-
died a fixed position planing surface and compared the results
with available experimental data, as well as those of Savitsky
(1964), and Shuford (1958) methods. An average of 10% error in
predicting the total resistance and 5% error in predicting the total
lift, showed the capability of numerical methods to capture
accurate results for planing surfaces.
Savitsky and Morabito (2010) have experimentally studied the
longitudinal surface wake profiles aft of prismatic hulls. They have
developed some empirical equations to quantitatively define the
centerline and 14 beam from the centerline surface wake profiles at

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.11.022
0029-8018/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
104 P. Lotfi et al. / Ocean Engineering 94 (2015) 103–110
Nomenclature
Δ displaced weight (N)
∇ displaced volume (m3)
Ω part of total weight carried by forebody hull
τ dynamic trim angle (degree)
υ kinematic viscosity (m2/s)
CV speed coefficient ¼ V=ðgBÞ0:5
Fr▽ volumetric Froude number ¼V=ðg▽1=3 Þ0:5
FrL length Froude Number ¼ V=ðgLÞ0:5
LC wetted chine length from transom (m)
LK wetted keel length from transom (m)
deadrise angles of 101, 201, and 301. Svahn (2009) combined these
equations with Savitsky's method for conventional planing hulls
and developed a semi-empirical method to predict the character-
ization of stepped planing hulls. He obtained the required power
and compared it with the power required by engines already fitted
on three constructed boats. Results were in good agreement with
those of actual engines. In a recent numerical study, Garland and
Maki (2012) investigated the effects of step height and location in
a stepped planing surface. They run the simulations for a two-
dimensional surface at fixed sinkage and trim angle. Makasyeyev
(2009) mathematically modeled the flow around a two-dimen-
sional stepped planing hull by a potential flow solution. By
specifying the cavitation number, Froude number, and LCG of the
hull, his proposed method was able to predict parameters like
draft, trim angle, and wetted lengths of the hull. Matveev (2012)
used hydrodynamic point sources to model the steady state flow
field around a two-dimensional stepped planing hull. His model
was capable of modeling single-step and multi-step hulls as well
as open and pressurized air cavities. At a given velocity, draft, and
trim angle, he solved the problem for wetted lengths, pressure
distribution and water surface deformation.
Taunton et al. (2010) have experimentally studied a new series
of high speed hard chine planing hulls and reported their
performance in a calm water. A part of their experiment included
three models with the same hullform named model C, C1, and C2
each having zero, one, and two steps respectively. For the model
C1 in speed range of 2:41 rFr ▽ r 7:12, wetted area parameters,
resistance, dynamic trim angle, and sinkage are reported.
In this study, experimental results presented by Taunton et al.
(2010) for model C1 have been used to perform a series of
numerical simulations. Then, the accuracy of numerical method
to predict the behavior of a stepped hull which is free to heave and
pitch have been investigated. In addition, a comparison is done
between experimental, semi-empirical, and numerical results for
some parameters such as the lift, LCP, resistance, trim angle,
dynamic sinkage at LCG, and the wetted area. Moreover, a
qualitative comparison with experimental observations is carried
out in the shape of the wetted area when forebody stagnation line
crosses the step. Furthermore, the wake profile at the centerline
aft of the step location is compared with that of the empirical
equation presented by Savitsky and Morabito (2010).
Aftbody Forebody
Chine
Keel
Step
Fig. 1. Body plan of model C1 (Taunton et al., 2010).
RT resistance component (N)
ZV dynamic sinkage at LCG (mm)
b beam of forebody hull (m)
H height of step (m)
h height of surface wake profile relative to height of step
L overall length of hull (m)
LCG longitudinal center of gravity from transom (mm)
LCP longitudinal center of pressure from transom (mm)
Re Reynolds number ¼VL=υ
V speed (m/s)
X reattachment distance from the step along the
keel (m)
2. Material and methods
2.1. Experimental reference
The present study is based on published results of experimental
tests done by Taunton et al. (2010) at the university of Southampton.
They modified a typical hullform of a high-speed interceptor craft by
reducing one step and removing two spray rails to generate the one
stepped model C1. Model C1 is of 2.00 m in length, 0.46 m in beam,
0.09 m in draft, 22.51 in deadrise, 0.763 m in LCG, and 243.4 N in
displacement. Fig. 1 shows the body plan of this model.
Models were attached to the carriage with a free-to-heave post
and a free-to-pitch fitting. This provides two degrees of freedom to the
hull. All tests are done with the assumption that the trust is applied
horizontally and passes through the center of gravity. During the tests,
resistance, dynamic sinkage, and trim angle were measured with force
block dynamometer and rotary potentiometers. Dynamic wetted area
was identified based on related photographs and videos. Model C1
was towed subsequently with a speed range from 4.08 to 12.05 m/s at
approximately 2 m/s intervals. Experimental results of performance in
calm water are presented in Table 1. Although most of the hydro-
dynamic parameters are reported, aftbody wetted area parameters
and flow reattachment location at the aftbody are not available.
2.2. Boundary conditions
In solving the governing equations, the boundary conditions
are specified as follows: At the inlet, velocity is specified with
parameters of the k  ϵ turbulence model, turbulence viscosity and
viscosity ratio, set to 0:0013 m2 =s2 and 0:00109 m2 =s3 , respec-
tively. These values are taken from Brizzolara and Serra (2007) due
to the similarity of the problems. At the outlet, hydrostatic
pressure is applied at water section and atmospheric pressure at
the air section. The top boundary is set to an opening, such that air
is permitted to flow inward and outward at the top boundary. In
addition, a symmetry boundary condition at the centerplane, a no-
slip condition at the hull surface and a slip boundary condition at
other walls are applied. Fig. 2 illustrates the location of each
boundary condition in the computational domain. Water height is
defined by an expression related to the predicted running draft.
Above this height, water volume fraction is set to zero.
Chine
Keel
 P. Lotfi et al. / Ocean Engineering 94 (2015) 103–110 105

Table 1
Test results of model C1 (Taunton et al., 2010).

Speed (m/s) CV (%) Fr ▽ (%) FrL (%) Reð106 Þ (%) ZV (m) (%) τ (deg) (%) RT (N) (%)

4.08 70.3 2.08 7 0.3 2.417 0.3 1.14 71.4 4.91 72.8  0.02 7 11.2 2.34 72.7 35.607 3.2
6.25 70.3 3.197 0.3 3.69 7 0.3 1.89 7 1.6 6.43 7 3.2  0.04 72.4 2.60 70.6 44.36 7 2.4
8.13 70.3 4.167 0.3 4.81 7 0.3 2.617 1.8 7.46 73.6  0.05 7 2.1 2.22 70.7 51.25 7 2.7
10.137 0.5 5.187 0.5 5.99 7 0.5 3.34 7 2.0 8.78 7 3.8  0.05 7 4.4 1.93 7 11.7 65.977 3.9
12.05 70.8 6.167 0.8 7.127 0.8 4.007 2.1 10.317 4.0  0.06 71.6 1.727 1.7 82.31 72.4

Free Slip
Opening
Outlet

Inlet
Free Slip
Symmetry
No Slip
Fig. 2. Boundary conditions.

2.3. Mesh

An unstructured tetrahedral mesh is created for all simulation

cases. The generated mesh is then refined at four regions where
steep gradients develop. The first refinement is at the boundary Fig. 3. Medium sized mesh around the step location.
layer on the static wetted area, in which a y þ of 50 and 150
eventuated to accurate results. This value of yþ leads to a large
node distance in area exposed to air, hence, the initial mesh is
adequate for capturing the effects of air flow on forebody hull. The
second refinement is applied to water separation region where
predicting the reattachment location is of great importance due to
its effects on aftbody resistance. Since the reattachment location is
different in each velocity, the whole probable area with a safety
margin is refined. The third region is the wake region where wave
formation is crucial in pressure force applied on the hull. The
fourth region is the air/water interface. The mesh is automatically
refined where there is a gradient of the phase volume fraction
inside the computational domain. The mesh refinement is done
two times every 150 solver iterations at the start of the simulation.
Fig. 3 shows the medium sized mesh and refinements as discussed
before. Note that air/water interface is detected during the solu-
tion and refined automatically.
The initial mesh created with a yþ of 300 along the hull ,
contained 1.2 M elements. The mesh density was than increased to
2.6 M elements and the yþ was reduced to 150. The Drag-Lift ratio
is plotted for coarse and refined meshes, as shown in Fig. 4. It can
be seen that, increasing the mesh density has a significant impact Fig. 4. Variation of Drag-Lift ratio with mesh density.
on the results, therefore, a fine mesh with approximately 5.9 M
elements and a yþ of 50 has been employed to check the accuracy insensitive to this size. Parallel simulations are performed on a
s
of previous grids. Results of the finest mesh are also illustrated in 3.4 GHz Intel Core™ i7 processor with 16 GB of memory. An
Fig. 4. average of 800 time steps needed to be done for each simulation.
Approximately, For lowest resolution mesh which contained 1.2 M
2.4. Solver features elements, it took 4 h for one simulation to converge including the
re-meshing process. Considering the fact that 4 simulations are
Steady state simulations are performed in ANSYS CFX v12.1. In needed for the trial and error procedure, the total time require-
this finite volume solver, a homogeneous water/air multiphase ment is about 16 h on a regular personal computer. For the highest
model is used to predict the free surface wave pattern. The k  ϵ mesh resolution, each simulation took about 20 h.
model is used to consider the effects of turbulent flow. In order to
reduce the computational costs, equations are solved only on half 2.5. Draft and trim angle determination
of the hull. Fig. 5 shows the main dimensions of the computational
domain and placement of the hull inside the domain. The size of In the case of a hull which is free to heave and pitch, both draft
the domain downstream the hull is enlarged to make the results and trim angle are unknown. Caponnetto (2001) has proposed a
106 P. Lotfi et al. / Ocean Engineering 94 (2015) 103–110

The application of the above procedure is exemplified at a

planing speed of 10.13 m/s. The empirical method yields an initial
draft and trim angle equal to 51.9 mm and 2.91, respectively. By
implementing these values in the CFD code, the magnitude of LCP
and lift is determined to be 569.8 mm and 189.4 N (point 1 in
Fig. 6). Line 1–2 in Fig. 6 is a constant-draft line. Point 2 is
determined by multiplying the initial trim (2.91) by the resulted
lift (189.4 N) and divided by the actual lift (243.4 N). This results in
a new trim angle equal to 2.261. Values shown in Fig. 6 are derived
from the present numerical simulation. To plot the constant-trim
line, the product of the initial draft (51.9 mm) and the actual lift
(243.4 N) is divided by the resulted lift (189.4 N). This eventuates
to a new draft equal to 66.7 mm. Point 3 in Fig. 6 shows the results
Fig. 5. Computational domain size (dimensions in m). of the CFD code. Final draft (point 4') and trim (point 4) are
determined by two interpolations from the constant-trim and
trial and error procedure to solve this problem. The actual working constant-draft lines, respectively. Point 4 and 4' show these
point is determined by assuming that the total lift value is equal to interpolated trim (2.721) and draft (63.3 mm) values. An additional
the displacement. He has also assumed that the value of the numerical simulation gives the final result.
longitudinal center of pressure (LCP) and the longitudinal center of
gravity (LCG) are equal. This is an appropriate assumption because
the LCP and LCG are mostly equal in practical situations but may
3. Results and discussion
change during the lifetime of the boat. Then, for each speed, he
plotted the LCP against the lift for three different drafts each
In stepped planing hulls, the weight fractions carried by the
solved for three different trim angles. The operating draft and trim
forebody and the aftbody depend on the operating speed and thus
angle are determined by an interpolation of these 9 numerically
wake profile and reattachment location at aftbody. This causes
solved cases. Although Caponnetto's procedure works properly, it
diverse flow regimes to appear. Therefore, investigation of the
could be tedious and time consuming to reach a solution.
accuracy of a numerical simulation should be done at different
In the present study, an improved procedure is presented to
regimes accordingly. At relatively low speed regimes, nearly 50% of
determine the running attitude of a stepped planing hull with only
weight is supported by the forebody. In this case, reattachment
three trials for each speed. In order to predict the initial draft and
takes place close to the step location. This leads to a small
trim angle, the empirical approach presented by Svahn (2009) is
reduction of the wetted area and thus the viscous resistance but
used to calculate the initial draft and trim values. Svahn has
the resultant of viscous and pressure resistance might increase. As
suggested to consider a stepped hull as two separate monohull
the speed increases, Lc=b at the forebody hull decreases and the
following each other closely with the same speed. Each hull is then
aftbody wake intersects farther away from the step location.
analyzed separately with the Savitsky's method. Since the fore-
Hence, the Drag-Lift ratio is decreased compared to an unstepped
body is subjected to the undisturbed water, Savitsky equations can
hull and part of the weight carried by the forebody hull (Ω)
be used with no modification but the aftbody is subjected to the
increases to around 90%. At high planing speeds, a forebody dry
disturbed water. Therefore the conventional Savitsky's method is
chine condition occurs if the stagnation line crosses the step. In
not applicable for the aftbody. Svahn used the center line and the
1 this condition, an additional wetting is added to the original
4 -beam buttock wake profiles derived experimentally by Savitsky
wetted area which is caused by the solid wake (Savitsky and
and Morabito (2010) to determine the local beam, local trim angle
Morabito, 2010) as shown in Fig. 7.
and local deadrise of the aftbody.
To evaluate the results obtained from the numerical simulation,
The draft and the trim angle are determined by using the
a comparison is made with the results of experiments conducted
Svahns empirical method for a given speed. These two values are
by Taunton et al. (2010) at different speeds. Furthermore, results of
specified in the numerical simulation. The trim angle is imple-
the only available semi-empirical method for stepped hulls pre-
mented by setting the orientation of the model and the draft is
sented by Svahn (2009) are plotted to demonstrate if the current
implemented by defining a user defined function (UDF) that
trial and error procedure improves the accuracy of the results. In
controls the level of undisturbed water. One should note that in
this method, the longitudinal center of gravity (LCG) is not an
input for the simulation. Numerical simulation is then performed
and the magnitude of the lift and the center of pressure are
calculated. In order to determine the draft and the trim for the
second trial, a linear relation between the lift and the trim angle is
assumed. Then, a simple algebra yields the trim angle for the
second trial. By performing the numerical solution and plotting
the LCP versus the Lift for the second trial, a constant draft line is
obtained. Literally, a constant trim line is plotted, starting from the
first or the second point. In this plot, an experimental test point is
located where the x coordinate is equal to the displacement and
the y coordinate is equal to the LCG. Assuming that in the
neighborhood of this point, the constant trim lines are parallel
to each other and so do the constant draft lines, an interpolation
determines the draft and trim angle of the hull. To ensure that the
assumptions are reasonable, an additional step at the final running
attitude should be done to investigate the conformity of the lift
and the LCP with their actual magnitudes. Fig. 6. The trial and error procedure used for prediction of running attitude.
 P. Lotfi et al. / Ocean Engineering 94 (2015) 103–110 107

this section, satisfaction of equilibrium equations, magnitude of methods. Although the acting forces are insensitive to the mesh
resistance, dynamic trim and draft, wetted area, and wake profiles resolution for medium and fine meshes, the following results are
are compared with those of experiments and semi-empirical presented for the fine mesh due to the better accuracy in
predicting the wetted area parameters.

Step Chine 3.1. Satisfaction of force and moment equilibrium equations

In this section, the uplift force at each speed is compared with

the displaced weight. Furthermore, the proximity of the numeri-
Keel
cally calculated LCP and that of the experiment is investigated.
Fig. 8 shows the results at five different speeds. The results are
obtained from the calculation using the interpolated trim and draft
(point 4 and 4' in Fig. 6) as input. An average magnitude of error is
Chine
Forebody Wetted Area 7% for the lift and 8% for the LCP. The magnitude of the error
Aftbody Wetted Area should be in a desired range to ensure that the trial and error
procedure would converge. In fact, if the interpolation result is not
Additional Aftbody Wetting
inside the desired deviation range, an additional step in the draft
Fig. 7. Schematic illustration of additional wetting in forebody chines-dry mode. and trim angle determination procedure should be performed.

3.2. Resistance, sinkage and trim angle

Presented results are obtained after an equilibrium state is

Fig. 8. Comparison of CFD and experimental results at different towing speeds:
(a) lift; and (b) LCP location. Experimental results are from Taunton et al. (2010).
reached. By performing the minimum trial and error procedure,
the computed average error in resistance, sinkage at LCG, and trim
angle are 5%, 13%, and 31%, respectively. Although the predicted
error for the dynamic trim angle seems to be a bit high, its
magnitude deviates less than 0.61 on average. It should be noted
that the error reported for the prediction of hydrodynamic para-
meters is the summation of all errors in the numerical method and
the equilibration of the force and moment equations. By performing
additional steps in the trial and error procedure, a more precise
running draft and trim angle could be obtained. This could result in
a reduction of the total error in predicting the hydrodynamic
parameters. For example, in a speed of 6.25 m/s in which the
highest error in sinkage (32.4%) is occurred, the second stage of
our trial and error procedure is performed. In the second stage,
instead of using the empirical values of the draft and the trim angle
used for the first trial, the final results of the first stage are used.
Remaining steps are similar to those of the first stage. As a result, a
further 0.5% and 8% error reduction (compared to those shown in
Table 2) is obtained for the trim angle and the sinkage, respectively.
This shows that performing more stages of our trial and error
procedure reduces the error in the prediction of the lift and the LCP
compared to the actual weight and LCG of the hull, respectively.
Table 2 demonstrates the exact values of the experimental and
numerical simulations as well as the corresponding error magnitudes.
It can be seen that at lower speeds, the error in the numerical results is
mostly higher. It is mainly because at lower speeds, a more consider-
able portion of the resistance is dedicated to the aftbody and any error
in the prediction of the reattachment location is added to the
numerical error.
Fig. 9 shows the dimensionless resistance, the sinkage, and the
trim angle of the hull against volumetric Froude number obtained
experimentally, numerically, and by employing the Svahn's method.
A good correlation between experimental and numerical results is

Table 2
Numerical results and error.

Speed (m/s) RT (N) Error in RT (%) τ (deg) Error in τ(%) ZV (mm) Error in ZV (%) LCP (mm) Error in LCP (%) Lift (N) Error in Lift (%)

4.08 34.00 4.5 1.80 23.1 14.85 25.7 751.6 1.5 226.78 6.8
6.25 49.33 11.2 2.79 7.3 27.02 32.4 842.2 10.4 246.24 1.2
8.13 50.50 1.5 3.16 42.3 50.83 1.7 773.2 1.4 225.96 7.2
10.13 69.10 4.7 2.72 40.9 52.01 4.0 879.9 15.3 259.32 6.5
12.05 78.79 4.3 2.40 39.5 59.69 0.5 837.1 9.7 209.96 13.74
108 P. Lotfi et al. / Ocean Engineering 94 (2015) 103–110
Fig. 9. Comparison of the CFD results with experimental and empirical results at
values in the range of Fr ▽ ¼ 2:41 to Fr ▽ ¼ 7:12: (a) resistance; (b) dynamic sinkage;
and (c) dynamic trim angle. Experimental results are from Taunton et al. (2010).
evident. At some volumetric Froude numbers, the values obtained
using the Svahn's method are unable to follow the trend of the
experimental results. The results obtained by the numerical simula-
tion, on the other hand, show the same trend. Therefore, the
numerically evaluated extremum points could be considered as
reliable to use in design procedures. Note that if a forebody dry
chine condition occurs, the Svahn's method could not be used. To
Wetted Keel Length
Wetted Chine Length Chine Unwetted
Spray Root
Spray Jet
Chine Wetted Chine Unwetted
region region
Fig. 10. Wetted area of a planing hull: (a) describes the spray root and spray jet
area; and, (b) describes the schematic of chines-unwetted and chines-wetted
regions.
Fig. 11. Pressure distribution over the hull bottom at speed of 8.13 m/s.
summarize these findings one should note that the Svahn's method
is a time efficient method at lower speeds, but might not maintain its
accuracy at higher speeds.
3.3. Wetted area
Wetted area on the bottom of a planing hull is characterized by
two parameters, Lc and Lk. The wetted keel length is a function of
the running draft and the trim angle, hence, a correct prediction of
the running attitude would result in an accurate prediction of Lk. A
matter of concern in all prediction methods of stepped hulls is to
determine the length of the wetted chine. In this study, the wetted
area of the forebody is reported and could be compared with
available experimental values. However, due to the lack of experi-
mental data for the wetted area of the aftbody, this value is not
reported.
Before reporting the wetted area parameters, the pattern of the
wetted area is introduced. On the bottom of a stepless planing hull,
 P. Lotfi et al. / Ocean Engineering 94 (2015) 103–110 109

the wetted area which is composed of two subregions, is separated
from air by a spray jet area (Royce, 1994). Fig. 10(a) depicts both wet
and dry regions which are measured by the wetted keel length and
Fig. 12. Free surface intersection with hull at speed of 8.13 m/s.
the chine length, respectively. The wetted region, where the spray
root is in its development, is exposed to a larger pressure compared
to that of the unwetted region. The pressure on the hull bottom
develops from the spray-root line and reaches its maximum at the
stagnation line. This could be used to determine the wetted area
from a pressure contour at the hull bottom. Fig. 11 shows the
capability of using the pressure contours at the hull bottom to
determine the wetted area of the forebody and the aftbody at a
speed of 8.13 m/s. In this figure, high pressure zone indicates the
wetted area of the hull.
The wetted area could be seen at the intersection of the hull
and the air–water interface where the water volume fraction is
equal to 0.5. A free surface graph at a speed of 8.13 m/s is shown in
Fig. 12 in which Lc and Lk are presented. In Fig. 10(b), schematics of
the chines-unwetted and chines-wetted regions are depicted.
Volume fraction contours could specify these regions. Fig. 13
shows cross section contours of the volume fraction before, at,
and after Lc at a speed of 8.13 m/s.
Table 3 demonstrates exact values of Lc and Lk obtained
experimentally, numerically, and by employing the Svahn's
method. It should be noted that, Lc is measured from the transom
to the intersection point of the stagnation line and the chine,
therefore, the distance from the step to the transom is added to
the forebody wetted length.
Fig. 14 shows the wetted area at a speed of 12.05 m/s. This
speed is high enough that the forebody chines-dry condition
occurs. The pattern of the wetted area is similar to the under
water photographs presented by Savitsky and Morabito (2010) for
a typical stepped hull. Two distinct regions at the aftbody wetted
area could be seen. The wetted region in the center of the aftbody
is caused by a solid wake from the forebody. The wetted regions
on the side of the aftbody are due to a spray cone. Differences

Table 3
Wetted area parameters at forebody from experiments, numerical simulation, and
Svahn's semi-empirical method (Svahn, 2009). Experimental data are from Taunton
et al. (2010).

Speed Lc (m) Lk (m)

(m/s)
Num Exp Num Svahn Svahn Num Exp Num Svahn Svahn
error error error error
(%) (%) (%) (%)

4.08 1.29 1.10 17.3 1.31 19.1 1.65 1.50 10.0 1.49 0.7
6.25 1.06 0.82 29.3 1.09 32.9 1.56 1.40 11.4 1.48 5.7
8.13 0.66 0.68 2.9 0.88 29.4 1.40 1.31 6.9 1.36 3.8
10.13 0.65 0.60 8.3 0.65 8.3 1.41 1.27 11.0 1.00 21.3
12.05 0.62 0.60 3.3 – – 1.38 1.25 10.4 – –

Fig. 14. Wetted area at the bottom of the hull at speed of 12.05 m/s; occurrence of
Fig. 13. Volume fraction contours at different cross sections at speed of 8.13 m/s: an additional wetted area is observed when forebody stagnation line crosses
(a) downstream of Lc; (b) at Lc; and, (c) upstream of Lc. the step.
110 P. Lotfi et al. / Ocean Engineering 94 (2015) 103–110

between forebody wetted-chines and dry-chines mode could be 4. Conclusions

observed by comparing Figs. 12 and 14.
The steady state two phase flow field around a stepped planing
hull is investigated using a CFD software to predict the hydro-
3.4. Wake profile dynamic characteristics of the hull. A new trial and error proce-
dure is introduced to determine the running attitude from a series
To compare the forebody surface wake contours, the wake of steady state simulations, preventing the time-consuming tran-
profile at the centerline is used. Savitsky and Morabito (2010) sient simulations. The aim of this procedure which is introduced
presented a series of equations to describe the wake profile aft of a by an example, is to reduce the number of trials, compared to
prismatic hull at the chine-wetted mode. If the forebody and existing approaches (e.g. the Caponnetto's procedure).
aftbody keels are parallel, the equation for a 20 and 301 deadrise at The foregoing results allow the following conclusions to be
the centerline of a stepped hull could be rewritten as following: made. The equilibrium state is fulfilled at different speeds by three
8 2 392=3 trials. Average errors in predicting the resistance, the sinkage, and
<C H =
4 the trim angle compared to experimental data by Taunton et al.
X ¼ 3b
v
Arcsin
5 ð1Þ
:π 0:17b 2:0 þ 0:03 τ
Lk 1:5 ; (2010) are 5%, 13%, and 31%, respectively. The wetted area of the
b
forebody predicted by numerical simulations is in good correlation
where, X is the reattachment distance from the step along the with that of the experimental reference with a difference of 10%
keel, b is the effective beam of the forebody planing area (0.37 m and 12% in LK and LC, respectively. The wake profile after the
for model C1), Cv is the speed coefficient of the hull (according to forebody is compared to that of the empirical equation presented
Table 1), H is the height of the step (0.022 m for model C1), Lk is by Savitsky and Morabito (2010) for the intermediate speeds
the forebody wetted keel length (0.69 m for speed of 8.13 m/s) and which shows a difference of 20%. These results reveal the accuracy
τ is the dynamic trim angle (2.221 for speed of 8.13 m/s). of the present numerical simulations and the efficiency of the
Table 4 represents the X value obtained by Eq. (1) as well as proposed procedure in this study. A comparison between the CFD
numerical simulations. The implemented Trim angle and Lk used results and those of Svahn's empirical method shows that the
in the former equation are experimentally derived values. In the numerical results are more reliable than those obtained from the
equation used here, the measuring reference of Lk is adapted to empirical method. Therefore, if the extra computational cost of a
represent the wetted keel length of the forebody. Note that Eq. (1) CFD simulation is acceptable, the numerical method could be used
is only valid for the chines-wetted mode and hence could not be with the advantage of higher accuracy for the prediction of forces,
used at a speed of 12.05 m/s. better prediction of extremum points of the characteristic graphs,
Fig. 15 shows a comparison between numerical results and that and the feasibility of the flow simulation around stepped hulls at
of Savitsky and Morabito (2010) equation of the wake profile at the the chines-dry condition.
centerline at a speed of 8.13 m/s. The dimensionless curves are
depicted from the separation at the step location (the origin of the References
coordinate system) to the reattachment at the aftbody. An average
difference between the two curves is approximately 20%. Brizzolara, S., Serra, F., 2007. Accuracy of CFD codes in the prediction of planing
surfaces hydrodynamic characteristics. In: Second International Conference on
Marine Research and Transportation. pp. 147–159.
Caponnetto, M., 2001. Practical CFD simulations for planing hulls. In: Proceedings.
Table 4 of Second International Euro Conference on High Performance Marine Vehicles,
Comparison of distance between reattachment point at centerline and the step, Hamburg. pp. 128–138.
Doctors, L.J., 1985. Hydrodynamics of High-speed Small Craft. Technical Report,
measured along the keel calculated by Eq. (1) and numerical simulation.
University of Michigan.
Faltinsen, O.M., 2006. Hydrodynamics of High-Speed Marine Vehicles. 40 West
Speed (m/s) X (m)
20th Street, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA.
Garland, W.R., Maki, K.J., 2012. A numerical study of a two-dimensional stepped
Num Savitsky and Morabito (2010) Error (%) planing surface. J. Ship Prod. Des. 28 (2), 60–72.
Makasyeyev, M.V., 2009. Numerical modeling of cavity flow on bottom of a stepped
4.08 0.096 0.244 60.66 planing hull. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium
6.25 0.259 0.323 19.81 Cavitation.
8.13 0.345 0.395 10.38 Matveev, K.I., 2012. Two-dimensional modeling of stepped planing hulls with open
10.13 0.415 0.464 10.56 and pressurized air cavities. Int. J. Naval Archit. Ocean Eng. 4 (2), 162–171.
Royce, R., 1994. A rational prismatic hull approach for planing hull analysis. The
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Great Lakes and Great Rivers
Section Meeting, Celeveland, Ohio (January 27).
Savitsky, D., 1964. Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls. Mar. Technol. 1 (1),
71–95.
Savitsky, D., Morabito, M., 2010. Surface wave contours associated with the
forebody wake of stepped planing hulls. Mar. Technol. 47 (1), 1–16.
Shuford, C.L., 1958. A Theoretical and Experimental Study of Planing Surfaces
Including Effects of Cross Section and Plan Form. NACA-report-1355.
Svahn, D., 2009. Performance Prediction of Hulls with Transverse Steps (M.Sc.
thesis). KTH Centre for Naval Architecture, Stockholm, Sweden.
Taunton, D., Hudson, D., Shenoi, R., 2010. Characteristics of a series of high speed
hard chine planing hulls-part 1: performance in calm water. Int. J. Small Craft
Technol. 152, 55–75.

Fig. 15. Wake profile at speed of 8.13 m/s; h is a dimensionless variable and it is
defined by dividing the height of wake profile by height of step.